Mandatory vs. Discretionary Prison Release and Recidivism
This paper examines whether replacing discretionary parole boards with mandatory sentencing policies has succeeded in reducing crime and recidivism. Drawing on reporting by Fox Butterfield in The New York Times and research by Harvard economist Ilyana Kuziemko, the paper argues that abolishing parole boards does little to reduce repeat criminality and may in fact worsen outcomes. Key evidence includes the dangerous effects of automatic release for high-risk offenders, rising per-prisoner costs, prison overcrowding, and the loss of inmates' incentive to invest in their own rehabilitation when a fixed release date removes any motivation for behavioral change.
- Introduction: The Parole Board Debate: Thesis and guiding questions on parole abolition
- Overcrowding and the Return of Parole Boards: States reinstate parole after mandatory release causes overcrowding
- The Danger of Mandatory Release: High-Risk Offenders: Petersilia and the Richard Allen Davis case
- Political Pressures and the Lack of Statistical Evidence: Political motives behind abolition and absent crime-rate data
- Recidivism Research and the Cost of Abolishing Parole: Kuziemko's Georgia data on rehabilitation and rising costs
- Parole Boards as Efficient Correctional Tools: Parole officers better identify low-risk inmates than judges
- Conclusion: Rehabilitation Incentives Under Discretionary Release: Mandatory release removes inmates' motivation to rehabilitate
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper opens with a clear, testable thesis and frames the argument around two concrete policy questions, giving the reader an immediate sense of direction.
- It balances journalistic sources with academic research (Butterfield's New York Times reporting alongside Kuziemko's Harvard study), lending both accessibility and scholarly credibility.
- The use of a specific, vivid example — the Richard Allen Davis case and the murder of Polly Klass — grounds an abstract policy debate in real-world consequences.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective use of expert testimony and statistical evidence to challenge a politically popular policy. Rather than relying on ideology, the author marshals quantitative findings (e.g., a 10% rise in per-prisoner costs after parole abolition) and qualitative expert judgment (Petersilia's criminological analysis) to build a cumulative, evidence-based argument against mandatory sentencing as a crime-reduction tool.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a thesis statement and two guiding research questions. It then proceeds chronologically through the evidence: first addressing overcrowding outcomes, then the public safety risks of automatic release for dangerous offenders, then the political context, and finally the economic and behavioral research on recidivism. The conclusion circles back to the thesis by linking incentive structures to rehabilitation outcomes, giving the paper a coherent argumentative arc.
Introduction: The Parole Board Debate
By replacing parole boards with mandatory sentences, have states tended to reduce crime? For the sixteen states that have abolished parole boards in favor of mandatory sentencing, has the rate of recidivism declined? Those are two of the central questions approached in this paper. A key observation is that when parole boards are eliminated, prisoners have no incentive to try to better themselves in order to earn an earlier release. The thesis here is that getting rid of parole boards does little, if anything, to reduce recidivism — and in fact there is evidence that the parole system is more effective in reducing repeat criminality.
Overcrowding and the Return of Parole Boards
According to journalist Fox Butterfield, writing in The New York Times, in 1999 several states that had eliminated parole boards "reinstituted" them because their prisons became so overcrowded that these states "were forced to release many of them early" (Butterfield, 1999). In other words, under a discretionary system, some prisoners who had shown a genuine change in mindset away from criminality were released before the initial sentencing date set by a court. But once the discretionary system was eliminated, prisoners were held until their mandatory sentences expired, which created the overcrowding problem.
Works Cited
Butterfield, F. (1999). Eliminating Parole Boards Isn't a Cure-all, Experts Say. The New York Times. Retrieved August 21, 2014, from http://www.nytimes.com.
Kuziemko, I. (2007). Going Off Parole: The Elimination of Discretionary Prison Release Affects the Social Cost of Crime. Harvard University. Retrieved August 21, 2014, from
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.