Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law

544 ———Patient’s Rights

they would distinguish between cases representing

good and poor parole risks. Importantly, this distinc-

tion should also lead to demonstrations of parole deci-

sions’ validity through follow-up research. To date,

two structured approaches for parole decision making

have been described in the literature. The first is a

matrix or grid method, as seen in Maryland, which

integrates severity of crime (arson, manslaughter, mur-

der, rape, robbery crimes vs. assault, burglary crimes)

and risk (scored information on prior criminal history,

age at time of current offense, time crime free, prior

escapes or parole violations, substance use) in estab-

lishing a range of time to be served corresponding to

each cell of a matrix. The second is a sequential or

decision tree method, as seen in Pennsylvania.

Through the assignment of a rating for type of offense,

risk/need assessment, institutional programming, and

institutional behavior, a cumulative score helps deter-

mine whether the offender is likely or unlikely to be a

good parole risk. The sequential method typically

incorporates more factors into the process than the

matrix. Both approaches are intended to provide struc-

ture to parole decision making, but empirical evidence

describing and validating the mechanisms underlying

these methods is almost absent. Nonetheless, trans-

parency of the decision process should yield less capri-

cious parole decisions.

Outcome

Ultimately, parole boards are held accountable for

parole violations, yet this is an imprecise dependent

measure of parole decision making. Dynamic risk

prediction suggests that proximal factors are impor-

tant in risk assessment and its management. Hence, if

a decision is made to parole a prisoner and 6 months

later, owing to deterioration while in the community

(e.g., reinvolvement with drugs, loss of job, loss of

stable accommodation), the parolee is returned to

prison, does this mean that the original decision to

grant parole was flawed? In part, it would seem desir-

able to have a standard of practice that defines a qual-

ity decision model against which decisions can be

compared. Congruence with this standard of practice

may be a more suitable criterion for evaluating parole

decision making than outcome. Encouragingly, from

a reentry perspective, discretionary parole release

appears to be more successful than mandatory

release. The latter study controlled for offense type,

prior record, age, ethnicity, education, and gender,

finding that those released from prison via discre-

tionary parole were more than twice as likely as those

on a mandatory release to successfully complete their

parole period.

Given the numbers of parole decisions made, as

well as the consequences of inaccurate decisions,

parole would appear to be an area for optimism.

Indeed, parole can serve as an important motivation

for prisoners to engage in programs and adhere to

supervision conditions. Most important, even modest

reductions in decision errors will yield significant

gains—individual, social, and financial.

Ralph C. Serin and Renée Gobeil

See also Bail-Setting Decisions; Community Corrections;

Conditional Release Programs; Homicide, Psychology of;

Probation Decisions; Psychopathy; Risk Assessment

Approaches; Sex Offender Treatment; Violence Risk

Assessment

Further Readings

Burke, P. (2003). A handbook for new parole board members.

Retrieved from http://www.apaintl.org

Burke, P., & Tonry, M. (2006). Successful transition and

reentry for safer communities: A call to action for parole.

Silver Spring, MD: Center for Effective Public Policy.

Serin, R. C., & Gobeil, R. (n.d.). Situating parole decision

making research in an era of pessimism.Manuscript

submitted for publication.

PATIENT’S RIGHTS

Patients who are subjected to involuntary hospitaliza-

tion in a psychiatric facility or who accept voluntary

admission retain certain rights within the institution.

Patients hospitalized because of mental illness do not

shed their rights at the hospital door. Although they

may not leave the hospital, they retain their rights to

the fullest extent consistent with their status as mental

patients. The Constitution protects the right of

patients to communicate with others outside the hos-

pital, to consult with counsel, to petition the courts, to

practice their religion, to have reasonably safe condi-

tions of confinement, to be free of unreasonable seclu-

sion and restraint, to receive adequate treatment, to

refuse certain treatments, and to receive a hearing if

any of these rights are sought to be curtailed or if their

P-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 544