Doekhie Jennifer, van Ginneken Esther, Dirkzwager Anja, Nieuwbeerta Paul
1Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, Leiden University, Steenschuur 25, 2311 ES Leiden, The Netherlands.
Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Inforcement, De Boelelaan 1077, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
J Dev Life Course Criminol. 2018;4(4):491-515. doi: 10.1007/s40865-018-0097-6. Epub 2018 Dec 5.
Little is known about how ex-prisoners' parole supervision experiences support or hinder the process of desistance. The aim of this article is to analyse the nature of parole supervision of Dutch (ex-)long-term prisoners in terms of official conditions, as well as the way in which parole officers (POs) and ex-prisoners navigate these conditions. The focus is particularly on the experienced supervision style and how this interacts with different dimensions of efforts at desistance.
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.
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.
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.
关于刑满释放人员的假释监督经历如何支持或阻碍戒断过程，我们知之甚少。本文旨在从官方条件方面分析荷兰（前）长期服刑囚犯假释监督的性质，以及假释官和刑满释放人员应对这些条件的方式。重点尤其在于所体验到的监督方式以及它如何与戒断努力的不同维度相互作用。
对23名荷兰假释人员进行了深入访谈，分三个阶段进行，从狱中开始，直至他们出狱后一年。对69次访谈进行了主题分析。此外，还查阅了这些刑满释放人员的假释档案，其中包含有关条件、违规行为和制裁的信息。
假释档案显示，假释官积极投入工作，他们与假释人员合作，强化那些已知有助于戒断的因素，并试图应对在较长刑期后适应“出狱生活”的困难。然而，访谈表明，大多数假释人员发现他们的假释经历主要以监视为主，对戒断帮助不大。当假释官被视为社会工作者或导师，并运用其自由裁量权调整条件以创造“试错空间”时，假释被认为最有益。
这项纵向研究表明，由于假释官的自由裁量权，荷兰风险管理的政策文化和话语并不一定会妨碍假释监督中的戒断支持。
