The American government strives to ensure that all convicts undergo proper rehabilitation processes regardless of the crime they committed. Although getting a parole release gives a convict hope for an ordinary life away from prison, many parolees often break the terms of parole. In other instances, parolees succeed in following parole rule but fall back to recidivism after some time. The movie Life on Parole gives the real-life process and struggles faced by parolees, their parole officers, and family members. This essay, therefore, analyses the subtle and overreaching criminological and sociological themes presented in the film while evaluating its manifest and latent codes.
Life on Parole episode 14 gives the experiences of Jessica Procter, Vaughn Gresham, Rob Sullivan, and Erroll Brantley while released on parole. Procter, having to be in jail for ten years for scratching a girl’s face with a razor blade, is excited to be out. However, the parolee is anxious and angry because she would have to report all her activities to her parole officer. She also feels that her sentence of ten years was too long for causing mere bodily harm to another person as she states, ” I didn’t kill nobody, but you would have thought I did kill somebody, though. Ten years?” (Life on Parole, 2017, 00:09:22). Procter, an African-American, was arrested when she was eighteen and had to give up custody of her son. She goes to school for a nursing assistant course and graduates after a year, gaining more freedom.
Brantley, a white American, had been in and out of prison eleven times since 1999 for petty crimes such as burglary and possession of narcotics. However, this was his first time being out on parole. Mark Pawlich would be his parole officer for his three and a half parole period. One of the rules of parole is that a parolee cannot make contact with any victim of his previous crimes. Brantley’s girlfriend, Katherine, had been one of his victims, and the parolee disregarded the rules by going to live with her. He also started using heroin and checked himself into a detox center without Pawlich’s knowledge or approval, an action that would warrant jail time. After a myriad of misconducts, Brantley got clean and married his girlfriend, only to relapse and fall back to heroin.
Similarly, Rob Sullivan, a white American father of one, had been arrested for issues of burglary and larceny. He also had a drug and alcohol problem that controlled most of his criminal impulses. Sullivan wants to graduate from his parole and be a good father to his daughter Reagan. However, living in a halfway house with strict regulations frustrates Sullivan. He, therefore, turns himself in and faces hos sentence without parole, coming out about a year later.
Finally, Gresham, having lived in a society where crime was inevitable, faced jail-time for armed robbery. Only at 25 years of age, Gresham, an African American, faces a seven-year parole and lives at a halfway house. All parole programs dictate that parolees must get jobs and save enough money to move to their homes. Although Gresham did get a job, he violated his parole by taking alcohol in the halfway house and recording his actions. His parole officer, Lisa Brayfield, immediately sends him back to prison after his misconduct. However, Gresham gets out on parole again after some time under a different parole officer.
Criminological Issues
There are many criminological issues evident in the film. First, using the choice theory, Mike Lawlor, the undersecretary for criminal justice, emphasizes that although these paroles enjoy some freedom, they are still under the Department of Correction. Therefore, they ought to weigh the potential benefits versus the consequences of breaking the parole regulations. The choice theory dictates that most criminals choose to commit a crime if the benefits of that activity are more compelling than the long-term consequences. For instance, Gresham lived in a community where crime was regular. “I grew up seeing people getting robbed, stealing, selling drugs, shootings, stabbings, fights” (Life on Parole, 2017, 00:16:00). He started committing crimes at 16, and it became a norm for him. Therefore, Gresham found that the benefits of robbery (fast money) outweighed the costs.
Byrne (2016) states that parole mechanisms, like the ones in the film, use general deterrence to succeed. Since these delinquents are rational beings who often use the choice theory in decision-making, general deterrence makes them realize that breaking the law is the wrong and unbeneficial choice. Further, Professor Fiona Doherty asserts that prisoners should have more freedom when released from jail on parole. She contends that parole officers are often tasked to act more like police officers than social workers. They, therefore, tend to focus on catching the parolee on a parole violation and sending them back to prison. Doherty states that flexibility in terms of parole regulations would push these ex-convicts into making better choices in life.
Secondly, psychological theories in criminology state that one could conform to a life of crime because of mental abnormalities or numerous stressors. Psychological issues are evident in the presence of Rob Sullivan, one of the parolees. With over one hundred thousand unpaid dollars in child support, Sullivan faced constant stressors. He, therefore, resulted in drug use, an addiction that caused misconduct in his parole. Further, psychodynamic issues may lead to an imbalance in individual developments. According to the Class Notes (2020), most criminals suffer from ego and superego damages during their early life, making it difficult to control their impulses. Proctor, for instance, gave birth to her son at a young age. Such a change may cause psychodynamic damage, leading to problems of anger and violence.
Sociological Issues
Sociological theories often emphasize that criminal behavior springs from environmental factors. The social structure theory dictates that one’s level of poverty may influence their illegal actions. All the parolees in Life on Parole come from poor backgrounds. Gresham, for instance, started stealing when he was in his early teens due to monetary problems. Sullivan also took part in crime to earn money for his daughter.
Furthermore, all these parolees, having little work experience and a criminal record, were at risk of recidivism due to financial problems. Parole programs understand that money is the main issue that leads to incarceration and recidivism. Therefore, the Director of the Watkinson House in the movie states that the primary goal for the halfway house was for parolees to find employment, earn enough saving money, and integrate themselves into society (Life on Parole).
Additionally, the social disorganization theory asserts that deviant actions are more prominent in urban areas since the everyday activities in such areas lead to a disruption in traditional social controls such as the family (Class Notes, 2020). All these parolees lived in urban areas in Connecticut, therefore, predisposed to criminal activity. Due to the lack of a stable structure in a fast-passed city or metropolitan area, most people turn to their peers, drugs, or social media. Gresham, for instance, succumbed to peer pressure in the Halfway house by drinking with other parolees, an action that sent him back to prison. Unlike the other three parolees in the film, Gresham lacked a stable support system. Therefore, it was inevitable for him to lean to his peers for emotional support. Brantley also faced hardships in his parole because his support system failed to remind him of the essence of parole regulations. His girlfriend, knowing of the repercussions one might face by breaking the rules, still allowed him to move back into her home.
Overreaching Themes (Manifest)
The entire film focuses on the process of parole. The overreaching themes during this process include parole rules, hardships faced during paroles, drug use and addiction, and emotions like anger. The regulations of probation were similar and recurrent to all parolees, as explained by their parole officers. All parolees showed resentment towards the strict rules they had to follow during this period. Moreover, the film shows that parole officers also faced emotional hardships while handling their clients. Such difficulties came from the fact that these parole officers deal with over a hundred parolees. Due to being overworked, these officers may get emotional while handling their clients. For instance, Pawlich, Brantley’s parole officer, often exchanges heated conversations with the client due to his disregard for parole rules. Also, drug abuse was evident in the film as all the parolees turned to narcotics to relieve stressors. Proctor uses marijuana when her studies, and trying to integrate into her son’s life becomes a challenge. Proctor and Sullivan turn to heroin, and Gresham turns to alcohol (Life on Parole).
Latent Themes
Race is one of the main themes in the film. Although subtle, it is clear that different races get different treatment from parole officers. While Sullivan and Brantley repeatedly broke their parole regulations, their officers gave them additional chances to reform. However, Gresham, an African American, only took alcohol in a halfway house and was immediately sent back to prison. Mechoula and Sahuguet (2011) state that the parole boards in all U.S. states prejudice against people of color. Further, parole officers often believe that African American parolees are more likely to commit crimes while on parole, thus take more precautions when handling people of color (Mechoula & Sahuguet, 2011). Therefore, Gresham’s parole officer inadvertently ruled his alcoholism and anger issues as a crime and sent him back to prison.
Moreover, gender is also an evident latent theme in the film. Proctor, being a woman and a mother, served her parole time in an institution that catered to her needs. Therefore, the fact that she was a mother and having a program that understood her needs drove her to complete her parole without having much misconduct. A woman’s motherly instincts often act as a driving force to refrain from negative impulses. Furthermore, since Proctor was a woman of color, she needed to avoid even the slightest misconduct due to racial prejudice (Mechoula & Sahuget, 2011).
Life in parole is difficult for all the parties involved. The parolee needs support not only from loved ones but also from the parole officer. Besides, the parolee’s loved-ones live in constant fear that they may break their regulations and end back in jail. Therefore, an analysis of the film and all the themes it presents explains the reasons for parole hardships. Majorly, the parolees ought to have a fair chance at a second chance. Parole officers need to disregard their biased perceptions of race, gender, or the type of crime committed. They also ought to reduce the restrictions that parolees face. Doherty states that if people could go to prison for having small misconducts, then people would never have a successful parole period. Parolees, without a support system, like Gresham, must have a different program where social workers help in their integration into society. Moreover, all states must employ more parole officers to reduce the workload on the existing ones, thus increasing efficiency.
Life on parole helps people understand the challenges convicts face while on probation. The film also sheds light on the racial and gender biases present in parole programs. Nonetheless, parole opportunities give parolees a chance to a normalized life on the promise of good behavior. Parole systems are critical in the criminal rehabilitation process, as they give convicts better lifestyles.