Department of Sociology Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities University of Macau
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PAROLE DECISION MAKING IN MACAO: A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PRISON RECOMMENDATIONS CARLOS MANUEL LOPES MALVAS Department of Sociology Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities University of Macau Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Master in Criminology at the University of Macau November 2012 PAROLE DECISION-MAKING IN MACAO: A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PRISON RECOMMENDATIONS STATEMENT I, Carlos Manuel Lopes Malvas, hereby state that this thesis is my own and original work, apart from the sections where origins are clearly stated. All the materials in this thesis have never been used (partially or wholly) in fulfilling the requirements for any degree or qualification in this or other universities prior to this submission. Student’s Signature: Date: i CARLOS MANUEL LOPES MALVAS PAROLE DECISION-MAKING IN MACAO: A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PRISON RECOMMENDATIONS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am deeply grateful for the insightful comments and wise advices provided by my supervisor Professor Liu Jianhong. Without his support I would not have completed this thesis within the required deadline. I also want to extend my gratitude to my Professors Ruohui Zhao, Spencer Li, and Ji Hyon Kang for sharing their knowledge on Criminology, and finally to the Macao prison director, Lee Kam Cheong, whose availability and experience in the subject matter of my research were also invaluable supports. ii CARLOS MANUEL LOPES MALVAS PAROLE DECISION-MAKING IN MACAO: A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PRISON RECOMMENDATIONS ABSTRACT The parole system in Macao was in recent years object of criticisms against its discretionary nature and in particular against the way decision-makers determine who’s coming out earlier and who’s staying longer inside the prison cells. Basically, those criticisms condemned the presumed absence of a pattern in decisions, the opacity of criteria, and the uncertainty in outcomes. This thesis addresses the topic of parole, and focuses on the stage of release decisions. Through a quantitative analysis of prison recommendations for all the 752 cases at first consideration from 2008 through 2010, the study attempts to determine whether there is a pattern emerging from data, and which are the most salient criteria in those recommendations. A theoretical framework inspired on the theory of ‘focal concerns’ was adapted to the specific context of decision-making by prison administrators. Bivariate and multivariate statistical techniques were used to analyze data. Results provided evidence of a clear and very strict pattern in prison recommendations. In consequence, the presumed unpredictability in release decisions was not confirmed. In effect, it was found that a small number of factors, and especially two of them – institutional misconduct and prior convictions – predict in a great extent the outcome of prison recommendations at first consideration. Findings revealed that parole is primarily used as a mechanism of risk management, for controlling: (a) risks associated with future criminal behavior, and (b) risks associated with the breakdown of prisoners’ discipline. In consequence, when making decisions on conditional release, prison managers are mainly concerned with the protection of the community and the maintenance of internal order and security. iii CARLOS MANUEL LOPES MALVAS PAROLE DECISION-MAKING IN MACAO: A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PRISON RECOMMENDATIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii ABSTRACT iii TABLE OF CONTENTS iv LIST OF TABLES vi INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER 1 The goals of punishment and imprisonment 1.1 The goals of punishment 9 1.2 The goals of punishment in Macao 16 1.3 The goals of imprisonment 22 1.4 The Macao prison system 34 CHAPTER 2 Parole: Origins and trajectories 2.1 The origins of parole and the ‘progressive system’ 39 2.2 Parole as normalization: Disciplinary and clinical parole 41 2.3 Punitive waves: The decline of the clinical model 47 2.4 Parole as risk management: Managerial parole 55 2.5 Other non-rehabilitative goals of parole 61 CHAPTER 3 Parole releases: Sentencing at the ‘back-door’ 3.1 Parole as a mechanism of early release 65 3.2 Parole as ‘back-door’ sentencing 74 CHAPTER 4 Decision-making in parole: Issues and theories 4.1 Parole decisions in a context of uncertainty 79 4.2 Causal attributions theory 85 4.3 Focal concerns theory 88 iv CARLOS MANUEL LOPES MALVAS PAROLE DECISION-MAKING IN MACAO: A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PRISON RECOMMENDATIONS CHAPTER 5 Empirical research on parole decision-making: A review of literature 5.1 Major directions in empirical research 92 5.2 Problematic and general findings 95 CHAPTER 6 Focal concerns in parole decision-making I: A design for quantitative analysis of prison recommendations 6.1 Research questions and theoretical framework 109 6.2 Study population and data sources 115 6.3 Measures: Dependent and independent variables 119 6.4 Data analysis: Techniques and procedures 140 CHAPTER 7 Focal concerns in parole decision-making I: Data analysis and findings 7.1 Characteristics of the population: General findings 143 7.2 Bivariate analysis: Results and findings 146 7.3 Multivariate analysis: Results and findings 159 CONCLUSION 169 BIBLIOGRAPHY 176 OTHER REFERENCES 186 APPENDIX A Literature review: Tables 187 APPENDIX B Contingency tables and bivariate statistics: SPSS outputs 194 APPENDIX C Logistic regression models: SPSS outputs 197 APPENDIX D Testing for multicollinearity 208 v CARLOS MANUEL LOPES MALVAS PAROLE DECISION-MAKING IN MACAO: A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PRISON RECOMMENDATIONS LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1.1 Rates of inmate participation in institutional activities 37 by sentence length TABLE 3.1 Release from prison on parole and end-of-sentence 70 TABLE 7.1 Descriptive characteristics of the population 144 TABLE 7.2 Results from chi-square and t-tests 158 TABLE 7.3A Logistic regression statistics by block 162 TABLE 7.3B Logistic regression: model for ‘good prisoners’ 163 TABLE 7.3C Logistic regression: model for ‘good prisoners’ and 167 ‘first-time’ offenders LITERATURE REVIEW TABLES APPENDIX A TABLE 5.1 Themes in research on parole release decision-making 187 TABLE 5.2 Research problems, variables, and findings 188 TABLE 5.3 Context and methods 191 BIVARIATE TABLES APPENDIX B TABLE 7.2 Percentages and chi-square values for independent 194 (EXPANDED) variables and parole recommendation TABLE 7.2A Percentages and probabilistic measures for independent 195 variables and parole recommendation LOGISTIC REGRESSION: SPSS OUTPUTS APPENDIX C Model for ‘good prisoners’ 197 Model for ‘good prisoners’ and ‘first-time’ offenders 204 MULTICOLLINEARITY TESTS: SPSS OUTPUTS APPENDIX D Table of Coefficients: Tolerance and VIF statistics 208 vi CARLOS MANUEL LOPES MALVAS PAROLE DECISION-MAKING IN MACAO: A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PRISON RECOMMENDATIONS INTRODUCTION CARLOS MANUEL LOPES MALVAS PAROLE DECISION-MAKING IN MACAO: A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PRISON RECOMMENDATIONS 1 INTRODUCTION The parole system in Macao has been in recent years, and from time to time, questioned by public voices echoing in the Legislative Assembly or in the media, showing concerns related to its discretionary nature and especially to the power of decision-makers (prison administration, judges) to determine who’s coming out earlier (granting conditional release) and who’s staying longer in prison (denying or postponing it). More specifically, what some members of the Legislative Assembly questioned was the ability of decision-makers to keep themselves immune against subjective judgments in the moment of decision on conditional release. They wanted to know which criteria are used to grant or deny parole to eligible inmates, and one senator suggested the creation of a parole board composed by prison authorities, social workers and experts (such as professors in law).1 A group of citizens whose relatives were serving time in prison went a step further in 2010, questioning the prevailing parole system, advocating its substitution by an “automatic” type of parole, in which the intervention of the judge would be abolished. What those voices revealed was the assumption that parole decisions are unfair and unpredictable. 1 Contrary to other jurisdictions, there is no parole board in Macao. CARLOS MANUEL LOPES MALVAS PAROLE DECISION-MAKING IN MACAO: A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PRISON RECOMMENDATIONS 2 These criticisms against the parole system in Macao are not new. In the recent history of parole, and with much more virulence, similar debates were raised in other societies and jurisdictions, in particular in the United States during the 1970s. In spite of this sense of dejà vu, however, the context, motivations, and proposals for alternatives behind those attacks, were substantially different from the criticisms echoing in the Macao’s Legislative Assembly. While in the United States the attacks aimed to limit discretion or even to abolish parole boards; in Macao, at least for some representatives, the goal seems to be the contrary: the establishment of a parole board. In the United States, the objective was to restitute parole decisions to the judicial sphere; in Macao is to limit or even cancel judicial intervention in those decisions, and to put them in the orbit of an administrative power. The present study was in part triggered by those critical voices. It deals with the focal issue that motivated the debate: discretion in decisions within the criminal justice system in general, and at the stage of parole release decisions in particular. But before explaining in more detail the purpose of the study, it is necessary to provide a definition for the topic of research. THE CONCEPT OF PAROLE Parole has been defined as “the conditional release of inmates by a parole board prior to the expiration of their sentence” (Seiter, 2011, p. 170) or, in a more generic formulation, as “the conditional release of an inmate from incarceration under supervision, after part of the prison sentence has been served” (Clear, Cole, & Reisig, 2011, p. 408). As a conditional measure it implies that the person released from prison remains under the legal custody of the state.