| Abstract [eng] |
Parole is associated with the aim of resocializing the convicted and rehabilitating them, as well as reducing the harm caused by imprisonment and the number of prisoners. The effectiveness of the institution of parole is defined by observing positive changes in the behavior of convicts and low recidivism rates. However, the tendencies observed in the application of parole —a low percentage of convicts, who have been granted parole on discretionary conditions, inconsistent court practice based on differently interpreted criteria—encourage judges’ parole application decision-making process and the factors, influencing judges’ decision. This research draws on the critical criminology perspective, which argues that jugdes’ parole application decisions, based on the theories of uncertainty avoidance and focal concerns, may be based on risk management, “extra-legal” factors, that describes the social status and criminal history of the convicted person. Decisions on parole application based on these factors may be linked to the classification of convicted persons according to their social status and the social labeling of convicted persons. To analyze the judges’ parole application decision-making process, the study used a mixed research approach and was conducted of a quantitative analysis of court practice and a qualitative study with 12 judges and assistant judges. The results of the study showed that factors such as the level of criminal risk, position on guilt, convinced profession, work experience, use of psychoactive substances, and the votes of the parole board are related to the judges’ parole decision and can predict it. Judges and assistant judges describe parole as an attempt to resocialize the convicted and link it to the uncertainty surrounding the risk of the convicted criminal behavior. It has also been established that the main factors for the judges’ parole application decision-making are the committed criminal offense, the remaining term of the sentence, which are linked to the public interest, meanwhile the social status of the convicted is considered an additional factor in preventing the person from reoffending, and therefore convicted persons with different social statuses may be assessed differently by the court. |
