METHODS: Twenty-three Dutch parolees were interviewed in depth at three waves starting in prison up to one year after their release from prison. A thematic analysis was undertaken to analyse the 69 interviews. In addition, the parole files of these ex-prisoners were examined containing information about conditions, violations and sanctions.
RESULTS: Parole files revealed the practice of highly engaged parole officers, who worked with parolees to strengthen factors known to foster desistance and tried to accommodate the difficulties of navigating \'life outside\' after a relatively long prison sentence. However, the interviews showed that most parolees found their parole experience predominantly surveillance-oriented and not very helpful for desistance. Parole was experienced as most beneficial when parole officers were viewed as social workers or mentors and used their discretionary power to adjust conditions creating \'space\' for trial-and-error.
CONCLUSIONS: This longitudinal study suggests that a policy culture and discourse of risk management do not necessarily preclude desistance support in parole supervision in the Netherlands, due to discretionary power of parole officers.
方法:二十三名荷兰假释者从监狱释放后一年开始,在三波浪潮中接受了深入采访。对69次访谈进行了专题分析。此外,检查了这些前囚犯的假释档案,其中包含有关条件的信息,违反和制裁。
结果:假释档案揭示了高度敬业的假释官员的做法,他与假释者一起工作,以加强已知的促进抵抗的因素,并试图适应在相对较长的监狱服刑后在“户外生活”中的困难。然而,访谈显示,大多数假释者发现他们的假释经验主要是以监视为导向的,对停释没有太大帮助。当假释人员被视为社会工作者或导师,并利用他们的酌处权来调整条件,为试错创造“空间”时,假释是最有益的。
结论:这项纵向研究表明,在荷兰,政策文化和风险管理话语不一定排除假释监督中的戒断支持,由于假释官的自由裁量权。