NCJ Number
89337
Date Published
1981
Length
149 pages
Annotation
Parole decisions were found to be related to the personality characteristics and occupational backgrounds of the decisionmakers, type of offense involved, and assessed causal stability of the offense.
Abstract
The subjects were 33 attorneys in Los Angeles, 36 probation or parole officers in California, and 39 Los Angeles police. The subjects responded to the Comrey Personality Scales and to a parole questionnaire describing three convicts and their offenses: armed robbery, embezzlement, and possession of narcotics for sale. For each convict, two measures of parole decision were required. Another question asked whether the cause of the last crime presented was thought to be continuing. Police were notably higher than attorneys or probation officers in social conformity and in masculinity. Probation officers exceeded attorneys in empathy. No other significant personality differences were found between the groups. Those subjects higher in social conformity were harsher in both parole judgments. Those low in trust and high in masculinity were harsher in one parole judgment but showed no statistically significant difference on the other. Police consistently made the most severe parole judgments for all crimes, while attorneys were the most lenient group. Armed robbery received the most severe parole judgments on both decisions. No distinction was found between the narcotics and embezzlement offenses. Subjects' assessments of causal stability on the third crime presented was consistently related to both parole decisions. Results are discussed in terms of explanatory variables and research on individual differences in decisionmaking. Details of the research instruments and methodology are appended, and 116 references are provided. (Author abstract modified)