Risk has emerged as a defining feature of punishment in the United States. Feeley and Simon (1992) note that contemporary punishment is increasingly moving away from rehabilitation (the old penology) and moving toward the management and control of offenders (the new penology), often though actuarial techniques. While the profusion of risk assessment instruments, now entering their fourth generation, provides some support for the assertion that risk is indeed an important element in corrections, it was previously unknown if the risk model applied to all offenders, particularly female offenders. This dissertation addressed that gap by examining whether the risk model applied to female offenders in the community corrections setting. This dissertation surveyed 93 community corrections officers employed by the Orange County Community Corrections Department. The findings suggest that the department has incorporated many elements of the new penology into the classification and supervision of offenders in each of its units, though several gender differences were noted. Classification overrides, the perceived level of risk to the community, supervision decisions, and the perceived importance of risk and need factors were all examined in this study. The results indicate that some elements of classification and supervision function uniformly for offenders and operate irrespective of gender, but some areas, such as the perceived level of risk to the community and the perceived importance of risk factors, are influenced by gender.

Chaque année, au Québec, les commissaires de la Commissaire québécoise des libérations conditionnelles doivent rendre des milliers de décisions concernant la mise en liberté sous condition des personnes contrevenantes purgeant une peine d’emprisonnement de six mois à deux ans moins un jour. Les finalités de la libération conditionnelle sont aujourd’hui la réhabilitation, c’est-à-dire que le délinquant soit réformé et réintégré à la société, ainsi que la gestion des risques que représentent les justiciables. Ce mémoire avait pour objectif d’analyser les pratiques des commissaires de la Commission québécoise des libérations conditionnelles dans un contexte où l’idéal de protection de la société par l’intermédiaire de la gestion des risques que représente un individu occupe une place centrale dans le système pénal. Pour ce faire, des entrevues semi-dirigées menées auprès de 11 commissaires de la Commission québécoise des libérations conditionnelles, hommes et femmes, ainsi que l’analyse de trente décisions écrites ont été réalisées. L’analyse a fait ressortir que les commissaires entretiennent plusieurs attentes à l’égard du plan de sortie et des caractéristiques que doivent posséder les candidats « idéaux ». Le projet doit être adapté aux besoins et au risque de la personne incarcérée estimés par les commissaires, offrir un encadrement, une intervention et du soutien, favoriser la réinsertion sociale et le justiciable doit s’approprier le plan de sortie. De plus, les commissaires portent une attention particulière au profil du demandeur. En ce sens, la personne qui sollicite une sortie anticipée doit être considérée comme ayant un bon potentiel de réinsertion sociale. Les décideurs vont également examiner l’historique judiciaire et correctionnel pour évaluer si le contrevenant est un « bon » candidat. / Every year, commissioners of the Québec Parole Board must render thousands of decisions on the conditional release of offenders serving a prison sentence of six months to two years less a day. The purpose of conditional release today is rehabilitation, which means for the offenders to be reformed and reintegrated into society, as well as the management of the risks posed by them. This thesis aims to analyze the practices of the commissioners of the Québec Parole Board in a context where the ideal of public safety through risk management occupies a central place in the penal system. In order to do so, semi-structured interviews with 11 Board members, man and woman, as well the analysis of thirty written decisions were conducted. It appears from our analysis that the Board members have several expectations in terms of the release plan and the characteristics that « ideal» candidates should have. The project must be adapted to the needs and risk of the prisoner estimated by the commissioners, offers supervision, intervention and support, promote social reintegration and the litigant must take ownership of the release plan. In addition, the commissioners pay attention to the profile of the delinquent. In this sense, the person requesting a conditional release must be considered to have a good potential for social reintegration. Board members will also look at the judicial and correctional history to assess whether the offender is a "good" candidate for conditional release.