About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


22 U. Pa. J.L. & Soc. Change 25 (2019)
Divided We Fall: Parole Supervision Conditions Prohibiting Inter-Offender Associations

handle is hein.journals/hybrid22 and id is 31 raw text is: DIVIDED WE FALL: PAROLE SUPERVISION CONDITIONS PROHIBITING INTER-OFFENDER ASSOCIATIONS JAMES M. BINNALL* In the United States, almost all criminal offenders who serve a term of imprisonment are subject to a period of post-incarceration supervision. Commonly known as parole, this form of supervision requires former inmates to comply with a variety of conditions. A nationwide survey of standard parole conditions reveals that a vast majority ofjurisdictions categorically restrict parolees' associations with other parolees, convicted criminals, and/or convicted felons. These blanket offender no-association conditions ostensibly presume that former offenders are irreparably flawed, homogenous, and that inter-offender relationships* are unformly criminogenic. This article questions those presumptions, suggesting that offender no-association conditions endorse an untenable conceptualization of former offenders, a rejection of evidence- based parole practices, an uninformed view of inter-offender associations, and a superficial application of criminological theory. This article further argues that by categorically prohibiting all inter-offender associations, offender no-association conditions foreclose strengths-based approaches to reentry and inhibit mechanisms that can foster criminal desistance. In this way, such conditions unnecessarily subvert the rehabilitative goal of parole, likely making them impermissibly overbroad in their current form. INTRODUCTION ........................................................26 I. THE WORLD OF OFFENDER NO-ASSOCIATION CONDITIONS: PAST AND PRESENT ........................................................29 A. Isolating Parolees: A Long History ............................... .....32 B. The Pervasiveness of Offender No-association Conditions - 2016-2017 ..................34 II. JUSTIFYING AND CHALLENGING OFFENDER NO-ASSOCIATION CONDITIONS.....35 A. How and Why We Separate ..........................................38 B. Legal Challenges to Offender No-association Conditions .....................39 1. Vagueness Challenges ..........................................40 2. Overbreadth Challenges .........................................41 III. FORMER OFFENDERS: IRREDEEMABLE AND HOMOGENOUS? ...................43 A. Prohibited Associates: The Criminal Others.......... ....................43 B. Parolees' Needs: Homogeneity Overcomes Individuality ............... .......45 IV. INTER-OFFENDER ASSOCIATIONS: ANTI-SOCIAL AND CRIMINOGENIC? .......48 A. Inter-Offender Associations: Ignoring Data ................ ................48 B. Misconstruing Criminological Theory ................ ..................51 Mr. Binnall is a convicted felon who spent over four years in a maximum-security prison and almost three years on parole for a DUI homicide that claimed the life of his best friend. He now works with former inmates upon their release from prison. His experiences inform this Article. Mr. Binnall recognizes the significance of language and that terms like offender inter-offender ex-felon and ex-convict can negatively affect society's perception of individuals who have been involved in the justice system. However, as someone with a history of incarceration himself, Mr. Binnall has chosen to use the terminology which feels most comfortable to him.