Parole board decisions can have a huge impact on whether or not prisoners are motivated to rehabilitate, according to a study co-authored by SFU economics professor Steeve Mongrain.

Mongrain and his colleagues argue that parole boards need to consider the length of prisoners’ original sentences as well as their behaviour in prison when granting early parole and determining eligibility for parole review.

Their article, Rehabilitated or Not: An Informational Theory of Parole Decisions, was published online in the Journal of Law, Economics and Organization.

“Our research shows that inmates with short sentences who are in line for early parole aren’t motivated to rehabilitate by enrolling in addiction recovery and skills-building programs,” says Mongrain.

“That’s not surprising. What is really revealing is our finding that inmates with long sentences are not motivated to rehabilitate if their parole eligibility is a long way off.”

Mongrain says the finding is important because any changes to laws governing parole eligibility should be evaluated in terms of their impact on prisoners’ motivation to seek rehabilitation and ultimately the rate of recidivism in prison and society.

 “Most people in prison are there precisely because of their lack of impulse control,” he says. “So very long sentences combined with long waits for parole eligibility can cause impatient inmates to conclude that rehabilitation is not worthwhile.”

Studies show recidivism is directly tied to whether prisoners complete addiction recovery and skills-building programs. If they’re not motivated to take them then recidivism goes up.

“Contrary to punishment, which is the big stick in our justice system, parole is the carrot we offer to prisoners as an incentive to rehabilitate,” says Mongrain.

“If we make the carrot smaller by telling prisoners with long sentences that we’re lengthening the time of their parole eligibility, then we destroy their incentive to reform.”