Factors that Influence Parole Boards’ and Judges’ Decisions on Parole Application in Lithuania

Open access

Abstract

This article examines problems of parole application in Lithuania. The research applies a qualitative study in order to learn the peculiarities of the work and decision-making of judges and parole boards. Additionally, this study analyzes social research reports, filled out by staff in correctional facilities. This study covers as many factors influencing parole application as possible, and takes into account the peculiarities of the particular parole stages. Conclusions of this study should help theorists and practitioners see parole application from the point of view of judges and parole board members. Moreover, this work should encourage dialogue between judges, prison staff and community members not only in Lithuania, but, also in other countries.

1. Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. “Using thematic analysis in psychology.” Qualitative research in psychology 3 (2) (2006): 77−101.

2. Danziger, Shai, Jonathan Levav, and Liora Avnam-Pesso. “Extraneous factors in judicial decisions.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108 (17) (April 2011): 6889-6892 // DOI:10.1073/pnas.1018033108.

3. Englich, Birte, Thomas Mussweiler, and Fritz Strack. “The last word in court − a hidden disadvantage for the defense.” Law and Human Behavior 29 (6) (2005): 705−722 // DOI:10.1007/s10979-005-8380-7.

4. George, Tracy E., and Lee Epstein. “On the nature of Supreme Court decision making.” American Political Science Review 86 (2) (1992): 323–337.

5. Gobeil, Renée, and Ralph C. Serin. “Preliminary evidence of adaptive decision making techniques used by parole board members.” International Journal of Forensic Mental Health 8.2 (September 2009): 97–104 // DOI: 10.1080/14999010903199258.

6. Huebner, Beth M., and Timothy S. Bynum. “An analysis of parole decision making using a sample of sex offenders: A focal concerns perspective.” Criminology 44(4) (2006): 961–991.

7. Malouff, John, and Nicola S. Schutte. “Shaping juror attitudes: Effects of requesting different damage amounts in personal injury trials.” The Journal of Social Psychology 129 (4) (1989): 491−497.

8. Morgan, Kathryn D., and Brent Smith. “The impact of race on parole decision-making.” Justice Quarterly 25 (2) (2008): 411–435.

9. Mussweiler, Thomas. “Sentencing Under Uncertainty: Anchoring Effects in the Courtroom.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 31 (7) (2001): 1535–1551.

10. Proctor, John L. “The ‘new parole’: An analysis of Parole board decision making as a function of eligibility.” Journal of Crime & Justice 22 (2) (1999): 193–217.

11. Report of the Supervision Unit of the Prison Department under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania on Parole Process and Parole Boards’ and Courts’s Motives of Parole Declination in Year 2015. March 14th, 2016, no. LV-948.

12. Sakalauskas, Gintautas. “Kalinimo sąlygos ir kalinių resocializacijos prielaidos” (Prison conditions and premises of prisoners’ resocialization). Teisės problemos 2 (2015): 5–53.

13. Sakalauskas, Gintautas. “Lygtinis paleidimas iš įkalinimo įstaigų įsigaliojus Probacijos įstatymui: teorija ir praktika” (Parole application after the enactment of Probation act: theory and practice). Teisės problemos 4 (82) (2013): 5–39.

14. Sakalauskas, Gintautas. “Nuteistųjų laisvės atėmimo bausme užimtumas: padėtis ir galimybės” (Employment of imprisoned persons: current situation and opportunities). Teisės e-aktualijos 2 (8) (2015): 4–20.

15. Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. “Judgement under uncertainity: Heuristics and biases.” Science 185 (4157) (1974): 1124−1131.

16. Vosyliūtė, Andželika. “Lygtinio paleidimo iš pataisos įstaigų taikymo teismų praktikoje probleminiai aspektai” (Problematic aspects of parole application in court practice): 95–115. In: Gintaras Švedas, ed. Bausmių vykdymo sistemos teisinis reguliavimas ir perspektyvos Lietuvos Respublikoje (Legal regulation and perspectives of penal system in Lithuania). Vilnius: Prison Department under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania, 2010.

1. Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania. Official Gazette, 2002, no. 37-1341.

2. Law of Changes of the 11, 17, 18, 21, 25, 30 and 31 Articles of Probation Act of the Republic of Lithuania. Register of Legal Acts, 2015, no. 11079.

3. Law on Changes of the 18, 19, 66, 90, 91, 126, 138, 140, 152, 154, 157, 158, 159, 164, 176 Articles and invalidation of the 127, 160, 161, 162, 163, 179 Articles of Penal Enforcement Code of the Republic of Lithuania. Official Gazette, 2012, no. 4-110.

4. Law on Changes of the Penal Enforcement Code of the Republic of Lithuania. Register of Legal Acts, 2015, no. 11069.

5. Law on Courts of the Republic of Lithuania. Official Gazette, 1994, no. 46-851.

6. Order of Minister of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania No 1R-154 on Confirmation of Parole Boards Rules. Official Gazette, 2012, no. 65-3314.

7. Order of the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania on the Approval of the Form of Social Research Report and Methodical Recommendations for the Preparation of Social Research Report. Official Gazette, 2012, no. 68-3500.

8. Penal Enforcement Code of the Republic of Lithuania. Official Gazette, 2002, no. 73–3084.

9. Probation Act of the Republic of Lithuania. Official Gazette, 2012, no. 4-108.

Baltic Journal of Law & Politics

A Journal of Vytautas Magnus University

Journal Information


CiteScore 2017: 0.22

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.119
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.113

Target Group researchers and scholars in the fields of law and politics, with an acute interest in the cross-pollinations of disciplines, comparative approaches to regional issues, and active dialogue on pressing contemporary issues of theoretical and practical import.

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 271 264 19
PDF Downloads 124 121 10