Efektywność warunkowego przedterminowego zwolnienia (wstępne wyniki badań)
Authors: Beata Gruszczyńska  , Marek Marczewski  
Published: July 2024

The article discusses preliminary findings of empirical research into effectiveness of the institution of parole. The project was carried out in 1996 within the Institute of Administration of Justice. The basic aims of the project included: a) appraisal of effectiveness of parole with respect to the entire examined population and to individual categories of convicted persons; b) analysis of conditions of effectiveness of parole. Used as the basic measure of effectiveness of parole was the index of relapse into crime, that is the fact of valid conviction for any offense after parole. The global index of relapse into crime in the examined population is the quotient of persons convicted again after parole to the total of examined persons. Analysis of effectiveness of parole based on data on further criminal records of convicted  persons (from their parole in 1991 till mid-1995), obtained in April 1996 from the Central Register of Condvicted Persons (CRS) of Ministry of Justice. Factors that determined the effectiveness of parole were identified on the grounds of information obtained from two sources: penitentiary files examined with a specially prepared questionnaire, and CRS data. The questionnaire consisted of five parts concerning: a) the convicted person’s basic socio-demographic data; b) information on his psycho-physical state; c) information on his serving of the term from which he was paroled; d) data on the sentence; e) particulars of the parole granted in 1991. The general population was made up of all convicted men paroled in 1991. Sampling was stratified and proportional. Division of the general population into strata based on two-dimensional demographic-criminological criteria, that is age and previous criminal record. Obtained were 5 subpopulations: young adults; young adult recidivists; first offenders; persons with previous convictions; and adult recidivists. Selected for the original sample were 10% of convicted persons from each of the strata except the young adult recidivists: because of the small size of that particular stratum (238 persons), sampling was dropped out here and the entire stratum was included in the sample. The total of 2,142 persons were sampled. Verification of the sample followed, data on the sampled person's being confronted with those from CRS and from the records of Central Prison Administration. As a result of verification, the sample was reduced to 1,635. Of the 1,635 questionnaires, 1,552 (93%) were returned, and 1,430 of them qualified for analysis. Thus ultimately the sample included l,430 convicted persons paroled in 1991. For each examined person, the follow-up period was 42 months (three years and a half) from the moment of parole. The findings lead to the following conclusions: After parole, 41.7% of the sample relapsed into crime. Among the examined socio-demographic traits, the following prove conducive to relapse into crime: age under 21 and lack of vocational training. Psychological factors such as self-destructive acts, personality disorders, and low IQ also condition relapse into crime. Relapse into crime was significantly more frequent among young adults, young adult recidivists, and recidivists. Also conducive to relapse are: participation in the prison subculture, disciplinary penalties, and failures to return on time from pass. The factor that hinders relapse into crime is employment during the term. Relapse into crime was significantly more frequent among persons guilty of offenses against property and against family. Relapse into crime depends on the length of term served before parole: it is most frequent among persons paroled after 2 to 3 years. Other factors that also influenced relapse into crime were: previous criminal record and a prison sentence under Art. 60 from which the person was paroled in 1991. The following factors proved of no significant influence on relapse into crime: level of education; number of dependent children aged under 18; length of the sentence from which the person was paroled; length of probation; and the fact of surveillance over the paroled person.