Premium
How do parole board members in England and Wales construct decisions about whether to release perpetrators of intimate partner violence from prison?
Author(s) -
Dyke Chris,
Schucan Bird Karen,
Rivas Carol
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
criminal behaviour and mental health
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.63
H-Index - 54
eISSN - 1471-2857
pISSN - 0957-9664
DOI - 10.1002/cbm.2183
Subject(s) - psychology , thematic analysis , domestic violence , context (archaeology) , prison , social psychology , criminology , construct (python library) , attendance , applied psychology , poison control , suicide prevention , qualitative research , sociology , political science , medicine , law , environmental health , computer science , biology , programming language , paleontology , social science
Background Existing research explores Parole Board decision‐making, but not specifically for perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV), a special case due to the gendered and secretive nature of IPV and the role of control in predicting reoffending. Aim To identify associations between case variables in England and Wales Parole Board decisions regarding perpetrators of IPV and explore how these variables help construct the decision. Methods Logistic regressions regarding decisions in a sample of all 137 male prisoners who had abused women and applied for release or progression to open conditions in England and Wales from April 2018 to September 2019, developed into latent class analyses. Thematic analyses of six interviews with Parole Board members about decision‐making in IPV cases. Results Release decisions were strongly predicted by the recommendations of offender managers, offender supervisors and psychologists, mediated by the Parole Board's confidence in their ability. Decisions were also significantly associated with custodial behaviour and attendance on courses, mediated by the Board's confidence in the prisoner's insight and honesty. Thematic analysis was both consistent with these findings and provided a context in which the associations could be understood. Conclusions The findings have implications for understanding the dynamics between professional decisions and the Parole Board's decision; for the importance of offender managers demonstrating their expertise and ability to manage risk; for Parole Board members' reflection and development; for academic research into IPV; and for those who have experienced IPV and are looking to understand parole decisions about their abuser.