Being assessed, being processed

Life-sentenced prisoners’ experiences of parole decision-making

3rd July 2025

Introduction

Bridging past and future research

Past project (PhD): How men serving life sentences for murder respond morally to conviction and punishment [2]

  • 48 interviews across two English prisons (2019-2020)
  • 26 participants approaching or past tariff dates
  • Focus on institutional demands for risk reduction

Today’s focus: Participants’ experiences of parole decision-making

Defining ‘parole decision-making’

I’m using the term broadly, to encompass:

  • Not just oral hearings
  • The wider apparatus of sentence planning
  • Risk assessment processes
  • Dossier compilation
  • How participants themselves saw it: a process, not an event

Research context and motivation

Existing research

  • Parole an under-researched topic [3], though shifting
  • Observational research often focused on hearings themselves [49]
  • Consistent finding: pre-hearing stages strongly shape the outcome [6, 1014]
  • Gap: Pre-hearing stages are under-explored

Key questions

We know that prison staff work shapes decisions, but not much about how they:

  • Interpret evidence
  • Understand risk
  • Prioritise competing considerations

We don’t know much about decisions made ‘on the papers’ [though see 13]

  • These represent ∽45% of concluded cases [15]

Today’s contribution

Three themes from 26 interviews:

  1. Temporal disruption
  2. Procedural expectations
  3. Performativity

Discussion of how these shape forthcoming work

Empirical themes

Temporal disruption: the parole process and lived time

For most of the sentence…

  • Biographically insignificant spells of monotony
    • ‘Dead’ or ‘nothing’ time
    • ‘Stagnation’
  • Limited behavioural feedback

After the parole process kicks in…

  • Biography comes ‘unstuck’:
    • Sediments of the past are stirred up
    • The future becomes realer, more appealing, and just beyond reach
    • Parole cycles generate urgency
    • Casework generates delays
He told me: “We forgot you. You’ve gone through the system and you’ve been forgotten. That’s why your report wasn’t written”.
— Billy
[I hate how] they are so blasé about it […] I’ve done so much […] to better myself, to get myself in a good position. [OMU staff] turn around and say to me, “Oh, well, I don’t really know what you’ve been up to.”
— Ebo
[I just want to] get it over and done with because […] it is late by 13 months. I just want to know […] All this time [since the last assessment] is limbo.
— Tom
I’m going to get to the stage where [I say] ‘That’s YOUR parole board. I’m not even engaging. Just leave me alone.’ […] They keep dangling the carrot, and just as I get to the carrot, they hit me with a fucking stick.
— Fred

Procedural expectations: risk assessment vs. moral evaluation

What did participants expect from the process?

  • Descriptions of personal change were perceived as necessary
  • Terminologies varied: risk-focused vs. holistic
  • Late-stage prisoners described change in terms of character [16]:
    • Reflective
    • Relating to the long-term
    • Concerning the emotional priority given to different considerations
I’ve got my empathy back. I mean, [now] I can stop and help somebody, if they need help, not just sort of walk off and say, ‘That’s not my problem, that’s not my business.’ It IS my business.
— Daniel
I didn’t know then that I could be kind to people, you know?
— Jeff
I mean, my beliefs are still the same. I haven’t changed my beliefs. The only thing I will not do in the future is inflict my beliefs on somebody else
— Grant
They were so intent on the fact that [I’ve been prescribed codeine] for pain […] They spent maybe even half an hour talking about it, which is [more than] they talked about the crime I committed.
— Frank
What the Parole Board did say, was, we don’t focus on the positives, because they’re a given. We’re here to focus on the negatives.
— Frank
I understand the reasons why […] Their job is to protect the public […] If I got into a relationship, of course there’s a bloody increased risk. But it’s not what I want.
— Grant
What I’ve gained [in prison] is healing from trauma. I understand that there is that risk. But I still believe that everybody should be treated as an individual because each individual case is completely different.
— Nicholas

Performativity: self-presentation and psychological integrity

What is the performative challenge?

  • Parole processes require a performance, BUT performances can be:
    • convincing/unconvincing
    • fluent/awkward
    • truthful/deceptive
    • authentic/manipulative
    • plausible/fanciful
  • Whether they succeed depends partly on the audience
90% of us in this jail tell [parole boards] what they want to know.
— Taylor

Performative styles:

  • Defensive minimalism: “yes, sir, no, sir, three bags full, sir” (Alf)
  • Calculated compliance: engage “because I had to”, self-disclosure on a “need-to-know basis” (Nixon)
  • Full disclosure: “you just lay your soul bare” (Daniel) but risk your own wellbeing
  • Narrative negotiation: carving out space for personal narratives

Narrative negotiation

‘Taking responsibility’—but not for the murder

[I told them] I’m not proud of the way I was […] In relation to the affairs. I can openly that. I said, ‘No-one deserves that, I wouldn’t want that for my daughters.’ It’s a matter then of just having empathy to the […] hurt and the pain you’ve caused.
— Ian

Defensive disengagement

When performance fails to please the audience…

Chris was asked about the possibility of encountering his co-defendant after release. Pressed repeatedly, he eventually snapped.

‘What if you meet him?’ […] ‘What if you can’t avoid him?’ […] ‘What if he follows you?’ […] ‘What if he won’t go away?’ […] ‘What if the police don’t come?’ ‘Well then, I’ll fucking kill him!’ It took half an hour, that did. That’s the answer he wanted.
— Chris
It’s like having a pair of scales, yeah? And they’ve got a big weight already fucking tilting the scales on one side that says ‘public protection’.
— Fred
It’s the hope that kills you.
— Derek

Future directions?

The proposed research

Core approach

  • Examine the decision as a socially situated sentencing process [see 1] involving many mutually constraining contributors
  • Not the product of a single discretionary hearing

Mixed-methods design: Quantitative component

  • Sample recent cases from specific prison sites
  • Code a dataset from Parole Board documents [adapting methodology in 17]
    • Decision letters
    • Case management directions
    • Dossier contents summaries
  • Analyse associations among data points and outcomes

Mixed-methods design: Qualitative component

  • Working title: “An ethnography of the parole dossier”
  • Sample 25-30 cases at the same sites and follow them longitudinally & in depth
  • Try to triangulate:
    • Staff and prisoner interviews
    • Observations
    • Document analysis

Current status

  • Ethics clearance received
  • Applications submitted to Parole Board and HMPPS
  • Collisions with reality ongoing!
  • Early findings in 2026 🤞🤞🤞

Questions

I’d love to hear your feedback, and thoughts about where this might/could/should lead!

References

[1]
Tata C. Sentencing: A Social Process: Re-thinking Research and Policy. Cham: Springer International Publishing. Epub ahead of print 2020. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-01060-7.
[2]
Jarman B. Moral messages, ethical responses: Punishment and self-governance among men serving life sentences for murder. PhD, Apollo - University of Cambridge repository, 2024. Epub ahead of print 6 June 2024. DOI: 10.17863/CAM.109063.
[3]
Sparks R. Crime and justice research: The current landscape and future possibilities. Criminology & Criminal Justice 2020; 20: 471–482.
[4]
Hawkins K. Assessing evil: decision behavior and parole board justice. British Journal of Criminology 1983; 23: 101–127.
[5]
Padfield N, Liebling A. An exploration of decision-making at discretionary lifer panels. Home Office Research Study 213, London: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.
[6]
Padfield N. Parole Board Oral Hearings 2016-2017 - Exploring the Barriers to Release: Stage Two of an Exploratory Study. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3081039, Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Epub ahead of print 1 November 2017. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3081039.
[7]
Shammas VL. The Perils of Parole Hearings: California Lifers, Performative Disadvantage, and the Ideology of Insight. PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review 2019; 42: 142–160.
[8]
Dagan N. Parole as a boxing match: lifers, prosecution, and the adversarial making of parole hearings. Punishment & Society-international Journal of Penology 2024; 26: 223–242.
[9]
Peplow D, Phillips J. Communication repair in parole oral hearings: comparing remote and in-person settings. Journal Of Criminology 2024; 57: 352–371.
[10]
Hood R, Shute S. The parole system at work: a study of risk based decision-making. London: Home Office, 2000.
[11]
[12]
Bradford S, Cowell P. The decision-making process at parole reviews (indeterminate imprisonment for public protection sentences). Research Summary 1/12, London: Ministry of Justice / Parole Board.
[13]
[14]
Finnis J. A formidable document of failure? The role of the parole dossier in the decision-making process. MSc, Birkbeck, University of London, 2017.
[15]
The Parole Board. Annual report & accounts 2023/24. London: HMSO, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-parole-board-for-england-wales-annual-report-and-accounts-202324 (2024, accessed 24 January 2025).
[16]
Sennett R. The corrosion of character: the personal consequences of work in the new capitalism. New York, NY: W. W. Norton, https://www.overdrive.com/search?q=E37F7DDC-239B-4948-8152-84118E411F82 (1998, accessed 3 April 2020).
[17]