We were delighted to be invited to edit this special issue of Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health. We have both long had a professional interest in the difficult area of release from prison—how law and practice so often seem uncomfortably misaligned, and how the practical problems facing released prisoners illustrate how service provision falls so far short of what appears so obviously necessary. Over recent years, there has been a very welcome growth in academic research in the area, from criminological, psychological and legal perspectives and with both a ‘domestic’ and comparative focus. But it remains true that some of the many challenges connected with the period of release, the transition from prison to the community, have remained unexplored and there has been a dearth of research exploring prisoners' experiences of the parole process itself. No area is more important than mental health. The high number of prisoners with mental health needs is well documented.

The move from ‘custody’ to ‘community’ is, for very many people, often fraught with difficulties. Prisons are debilitating places, and in most countries, ill‐constructed to facilitate re‐integration. It is also well known that people in prison often face multiple disadvantages, and these disadvantages can multiply in the prison environment. A key question that arises, therefore, is how best to smooth this important transition?

It is hardly surprising that legislators worldwide have been thinking more about release from prison and creating more laws to cover this. But in many jurisdictions, this has simply brought more complexity, not improved processes. Across jurisdictions, we can identify many different release processes—early release, delayed release, automatic release, conditional release and parole. While some of these processes are discretionary in the jurisdictions which we know best, release is rarely unconditional even if automatic. People usually come out of prison with an array of requirements to which they are subject for varying periods of time, non‐compliance with which can render them liable to recall to custody. This can include requirements to engage with assessments and services relating to mental health, alcohol and drugs.

It can be hard to gather data on the mental health of prisoners. In England and Wales and in Scotland, responsibility for the provision of prison health care was moved from a separate prison medical service to the National Health Service (NHS) after 2002. There was great hope that this would lead to improvements: that the ethic of ‘equivalence’ of services available to individuals in prison with those available to all other NHS patients would become embedded. But it did not happen. The 2009 Bradley Report in England could have been a wake‐up call: it highlighted not only the number of people in prison with mental health needs, but also how prison itself, the prison environment, can be seriously detrimental to mental health. The review heard evidence that 2,000 prison places per year could be saved if a proportion of eligible, short‐term prisoners who committed offences while experiencing mental health problems were given appropriate community sentences (Bradley Report, 2009, p. 96). What is more, prisoners appear in many countries to be stuck in a revolving door of prison release and re‐entry.

In the United Kingdom, short‐term prisoners with mental health problems will be released automatically having served the requisite portion of their sentence. The early release of long‐term prisoners, on the other hand, will be discretionary and predicated upon them being able to demonstrate to the relevant authorities that any risks they pose can be safely managed in the community. Yet little is known about how mental health impacts upon parole decision‐making and outcomes or how the process of parole may in turn impact upon prisoners' mental health.

The broad range of articles in this issue, focusing on release and the period immediately after release, reflects the challenges faced by ex‐offenders. We called for proposals for articles for this issue and were delighted by the response. Selection was tough, but we focused on those papers which appeared to have particular relevance for this Journal, Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health. All are based on original research and have important contributions to make to the field.

We are pleased to include three non‐UK papers that focus on aspects of parole in other jurisdictions. Comparative research is notoriously difficult, but learning from experiences of other jurisdictions is vitally important. First, Jessie Gwynne, Julia Yesberg and Devon Polaschek (this issue‐add link) offer a much needed insight into the challenges faced by prisoners in New Zealand, where up to a third of released ‘high risk’ offenders return to prison within 100 days. Their Parole Experiences Measure reveals highly relevant insights into how external circumstances (finances, social support and accommodation) were more predictive of recidivism (reconviction and re‐imprisonment) than subjective well‐being (mental and physical health). This confirms in an original way what we might have guessed: meeting basic practical needs in the early months of parole may be more important to avoiding reconviction than attending only to mental and physical health. Gwynne et al. postulate that better experiences of parole may result in ex‐prisoners being better equipped to engage with the process of desistance. They conclude that future research might usefully focus on how some parolees have better post‐release experiences and what types of services and interventions might support this.

Second, Laura McKendy and Rosemary Ricciardelli (this issue‐add link) look at the post‐release mental health experiences of women on parole in Canada. They develop fascinating insights into the tensions which arise when mental health is seen both as a criminogenic risk and a therapeutic need. This paradox of community supervision, whereby supervisors are both meant to support and enforce, runs through much of the literature on community sanctions and parole. But here their emphasis is on ‘role leakage’ in which professionals step beyond their traditional areas of expertise. It is perhaps not surprising that when staff provide both services to their clients and at the same time provide risk assessments to their employers, or the state, this can inhibit the development of trust and undermine the ‘working alliance’ between supervisors and parolees—that is characterised by open and honest working relationships—resulting in women retreating from meaningful engagement with the supervisory process. They note the ‘vast changes and pressures associated with re‐entry’ (at page xx) which highlights the importance of the supportive and advocacy functions of post‐release case management that is often at odds with the requirement for supervision, enforcement and control.

The third non‐UK paper comes from Austria. Monika Stemkowski's painstaking analysis (this issue‐add link) of 807 prison and court files suggests that ‘comprehensive preparation and management’ of conditional release, should include providing support and treatment as well as a certain level of control. Reflecting on the release of those detained in psychiatric hospitals as well as the release of prisoners from prison is another form of comparative research. Both are subject to similar ‘risk‐based’ release regimes. There has been an encouraging reduction in the reconvictions and licence revocations in Austria in the last 15 years. This Stemkowski puts down to improved preparation and management of the time on parole—more temporary releases prior to the actual release and a better mixing of support and monitoring with the latter evidenced through the increased use of directives related to issues such as medication and abstinence from alcohol or drugs. Structured ‘care facilities’ and appropriate medication are important areas for future research—particularly the continuity of psychiatric and other practical support across the release period.

Our next study is by Lynn Kelly, Gill McIvor and Karen Richard (this issue‐add link) whose Scottish survey of 197 long‐term prisoners explored their experiences of seeking early release on parole. They argue that better support for prisoners prior to, during and following parole hearings might foster their increased engagement and alleviate some of the anxiety associated with the parole process. This study adds to the literature which suggests that parole is often seen as something done to prisoners rather than a process to engage them with their own rehabilitation. As they suggest, effective prisoner participation is not only important for giving the process a certain legitimacy but also longer term desistance from criminal activity is associated with the prisoner's sense of ownership of the process. This study adds to the literature on the potential benefits of enhanced support to prisoners at various stages in the parole process, through advocacy and mentoring.

Two of the studies in this issue focus on the problems associated with prisoners serving the English and Welsh sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP). While this sentence was abolished in 2012, the number of prisoners serving the sentence ‘within the system’ continues to ‘cast a long shadow over the justice system’ (see Harris et al, this issue). Many IPP prisoners have indeed been released—but the number recalled (and recalled more than once) continues to grow. Mia Harris, Kimmett Edgar and Russell Webster (this issue‐add link) explore the experiences of recalled IPP prisoners. Their themes are enormously pertinent for all prisoners serving indeterminate sentences: a perpetual state of anxiety about recall and spending additional years behind bars; self‐imposed social isolation, both in the community and in prison; and a profound sense of hopelessness. People serving indeterminate sentences such as the IPP often feel trapped in an unjust and inevitable cycle of imprisonment, with little faith in a positive future. A sense of powerlessness, frustration, anxiety and social isolation may be exacerbated by the fact that in the case of IPP prisoners the ‘punishment’ or ‘tariff’ part of their sentences tends to be relatively short, certainly in comparison with mandatory life sentences. Recalled IPP prisoners described themselves as being hypervigilant through concerns about how their behaviour might result in negative inferences being drawn about their risk (and, hence, suitability for re‐release). IPP prisoners in Harris et al.‘s studies described delaying or avoiding seeking help for mental health problems through a concern that this might result in their being assessed as ‘riskier’ and recalled or denied release. The need for confidential mental health support ‘to openly discuss the sentence's harmful consequences without further entrapping themselves within it’ (page xx) is a theme which echoes clearly with the findings of McKendy and Ricciardelli's research in Canada.

Unusually, and very usefully, Christina Straub and Harry Annison (this issue‐add link) examine the mental strains caused for family members by the IPP sentence and the related parole process. Imprisonment has well‐documented emotional and mental impacts on prisoners' families—such as anxiety, depression and behavioural difficulties among children—which tend to be exacerbated by the IPP sentence. The indeterminacy of the sentence and the uncertainty of the parole process was described by families as constituting a significant source of stress, the cumulative effects of which can have long‐lasting, severe mental and physiological health effects on any or all members. Drawing on a body of neuroscientific, neuro‐endocrinological and criminological literature, they argue very convincingly that these mental health impacts on families may represent a public health risk in need of practical and policy mitigation.

Finally, in this volume, Chris Dyke, Karen Schucan Bird and Carol Rivas (this issue‐add link) explore release decisions in relation to perpetrators of intimate partner violence. This article raises less explicit questions about mental health, but raises important issues regarding factors that influence Parole Board decision‐making. Boards were found to be inclined to release/progress prisoners on the recommendation of professionals, provided they had confidence in those professionals' expertise and their ability to manage the risk. Positive feedback on completion of offence‐focused interventions was also associated with an increased likelihood of release, particularly if prisoners also impressed the Board with their honesty and integrity. They argue, however, that intimate partner violence poses a specific challenge to parole boards because of its gendered and private nature and complex relationship with re‐offending. For example, their research suggests that someone whose violence is linked to ‘visible risk factors’ (such as alcohol and drug misuse, unstable mental health, disengagement from networks) can be more easily recalled before becoming violent, compared to someone with a controlling personality (‘intimate terrorists’). As a consequence, the latter are rarely released, while those who are more chaotically violent—but whose risks may be more easily detected—may be six times more likely to be granted parole. The implications of this important finding clearly warrants further consideration—and for all prisoners.

The contributions to this themed edition have been drawn from a range of disciplines and jurisdictions exploring differing aspects of the relationship between mental health and parole. They give a voice to the prisoner and, in so doing, identify the imbalance of power between the ‘state’ and the ‘prisoner’. This takes many forms, including access to information and services and the privileging of professional discourses that undermines transparency and limits meaningful participation and engagement in the parole process both in prison and following release.

A number of important messages emerge. First, how improving the quality of parolees' experiences after release may contribute to better outcomes. Second, they replicate the importance of meeting prisoners' practical needs but how that systems are still falling short on this. Clear pointers for policy and practice flow from their findings although implementing them remains a challenge in many jurisdictions.

A third key message from these studies concerns the importance of recognising the diversity of those involved in the parole process. The finding by Stempkowski that increased control through the greater use of prescriptive requirements appeared to be associated with improved outcomes among men appears to contrast with McKendy and Ricciardelli's finding that the controlling aspects of supervision could undermine the development of a ‘working alliance’ between supervisors and female parolees. It points instead, we believe, to the significance of gender as a responsivity factor, suggesting that approaches that appear to ‘work’ with the majority of ex‐prisoners (men) may be less effective in engaging and supporting desistance among women. Dyke et al.‘s discussion of how parole decisions are shaped by the characteristics of men convicted of intimate partner violence encourages further attention to how risk is both identified and defined as manageable among different prisoner groups. Further attention is needed to how risk is best conceptualised and managed among prisoners with mental health problems.

A fourth important contribution made by the articles in this collection is that they throw further light on some collateral impacts of imprisonment and parole through focusing on the families of prisoners serving these sentences. While the possibility of parole can offer a sense of optimism and hope to some prisoners and their families, for many it is associated with anxiety, hopelessness and frustration. These feelings appear to be further compounded by the ‘secrecy’ and lack of transparency that has traditionally been associated with the parole process and Parole Board decisions.

A fifth point is that the anxiety and stress associated with the parole process suggests a need for prisoners both to understand the parole process better and to feel more supported during it. Wider access to relevant supports, such as mentoring and advocacy, could help.

Finally, and perhaps most worrying, was the finding that some prisoners actively avoided seeking help in relation to mental health concerns through fear that this would impact upon their chances of parole success. This is an issue that must be addressed. The ways in which mental health impacts upon parole decision‐making—and is perceived to impact upon it—and the impact of the parole process on prisoners' mental health are areas where further research is clearly warranted, not least given increasing concern—in the United Kingdom at least—about rising suicide levels among prisoners.

On the face of it, some of the conclusions to be drawn from this collection of papers might appear obvious: if someone is released from prison homeless, or to a chaotic hostel for only a short time, they are more likely to come into contact with alcohol, drugs and other ‘criminogenic’ influences. As a result, they are more likely to re‐offend and be recalled to prison than those who are released to genuinely supportive and supported accommodation. Despite this, in the United Kingdom, as in other jurisdictions, the provision of accommodation and other services necessary to meet ex‐prisoners’ needs—including, crucially, the availability of mental health services—remains an ongoing challenge. The Commission on Women Offenders (2012), for example, highlighted the absence of a national strategy with respect to the re‐integration of released prisoners in Scotland. Moreover, governments feel the need to control and manage as can be seen from concerns articulated internationally about the increasing recall rates of prisoners granted parole or other forms of discretionary release. We hope these studies may help to persuade them that support and trust are just as important and are, indeed, necessary if compliance is to be more than superficial and sustained desistance is desired.

我们很高兴受邀编辑本期《犯罪行为与心理健康》特刊。我们长期以来一直对释放监狱的困难领域抱有专业兴趣-法律和实践如何常常看起来令人不舒服地错位，以及释放的囚犯面临的实际问题如何说明提供服务远远没有如此明显地必要。近年来，从犯罪学，心理学和法律角度以及“国内”和比较焦点的角度来看，该领域的学术研究取得了令人欢迎的增长。但是，与释放期间（从监狱到社区的过渡）相关的许多挑战中的某些挑战仍未得到探索，并且缺乏关于囚犯对假释程序本身经验的研究。没有什么地方比心理健康更重要。

对于很多人来说，从“托管”到“社区”的转变常常充满困难。监狱是令人衰弱的地方，在大多数国家/地区，监狱结构不良，无法促进重新融合。众所周知，监狱中的人经常面临多种不利条件，而这些不利条件在监狱环境中会成倍增加。因此，出现的一个关键问题是如何最好地平滑这一重要过渡？

毫不奇怪，全世界的立法者都在思考更多关于从监狱中释放并制定更多法律来解决这一问题的想法。但是在许多辖区，这只是带来了更多的复杂性，而没有改进流程。在各个辖区，我们可以确定许多不同的释放流程-提前释放，延迟释放，自动释放，有条件释放和假释。尽管其中一些过程在我们最了解的辖区是酌处的，但即使是自动发布也很少是无条件的。人们通常会出狱，在不同的时间段内要面对一系列的要求，不遵守这些要求可能会使他们容易被召回羁押。这可能包括参与有关心理健康，酒精和毒品的评估和服务的要求。

收集有关囚犯心理健康的数据可能很困难。在英格兰和威尔士以及苏格兰，提供监狱保健服务的责任从2002年后从一个单独的监狱医疗服务转到了国家保健服务（NHS）。人们非常希望这将导致改善：监狱中的个人所获得的服务与所有其他NHS患者所获得的服务之间的“等同性”将变得根深蒂固。但这并没有发生。2009年英格兰的《布拉德利报告》可能是一个警钟：它不仅强调了有精神健康需要的监狱人数，而且强调了监狱本身，监狱环境如何严重损害精神健康。审查发现，有证据表明，如果一定比例的合格，2009年，页。96）。而且，在许多国家，囚犯似乎被困在旋转释放和重返监狱中。

在英国，患有精神健康问题的短期囚犯在服完刑期的必要部分后将自动释放。另一方面，长期释放囚犯则应酌情决定，并以他们能够向有关当局证明他们所构成的任何风险可以在社区内得到安全管理为前提。关于心理健康如何影响假释的决策和结果，或者假释的过程又可能如何影响囚犯的心理健康，人们所知甚少。

本期的文章范围很广，侧重于释放和释放后的一段时间，反映了前罪犯面临的挑战。我们要求为该问题的文章提供建议，并为响应感到高兴。选择是艰难的，但我们专注于那些与本期刊，犯罪行为和心理健康特别相关的论文。所有这些都基于原始研究，并对该领域做出了重要贡献。

我们很高兴将三篇非英国的论文集中在其他司法管辖区的假释方面。比较研究众所周知是困难的，但是从其他司法管辖区的经验中学习至关重要。首先，杰西·格温（Jessie Gwynne），茱莉亚·艾斯伯格（Julia Yesberg）和德文·波拉斯切克（Devon Polaschek）（此问题添加链接）提供了急需的洞察力，以了解新西兰囚犯所面临的挑战，在这些囚犯中，多达三分之一的获释“高风险”犯人将在100天内重返监狱。他们的假释经验衡量标准揭示了与主观幸福感（心理和身体健康）相比，外部环境（财务，社会支持和住宿）如何更能预测累犯（重新定罪和重新入狱）的洞察力。这以一种原始的方式证实了我们可能已经猜到的：在避免假释的最初几个月中，满足基本的实际需求可能比仅关注身心健康更重要。Gwynne等。假设更好的假释经历可能会导致囚犯具备更好的能力来参与停职过程。他们得出结论，未来的研究可能会有益地集中在某些假释如何具有更好的发布后体验，以及哪些类型的服务和干预措施可能会对此提供支持。

其次，劳拉·麦肯迪（Laura McKendy）和罗斯玛丽·里恰德利（Rosemary Ricciardelli）（此问题添加链接）着眼于加拿大假释妇女在释放后的心理健康经历。他们对精神健康既被视为犯罪风险，又被视为治疗需求时所产生的紧张关系产生了令人着迷的见解。社区监督的这种悖论，即监督者既要支持又要执法，贯穿于有关社区制裁和假释的许多文献。但是在这里，他们的重点是“角色泄漏”，即专业人员超越了传统的专业领域。当员工既向客户提供服务又同时向其雇主或国家提供风险评估时，也许就不足为奇了。这可能会阻碍信任的发展，并破坏主管与假释之间的“工作联盟”（其特点是开放和诚实的工作关系），导致妇女从有意义地参与监管过程中退缩。他们注意到“与重新进入相​​关的巨大变化和压力”（第xx页）突出显示了发布后案件管理的支持和倡导功能的重要性，这常常与监督，执行和控制的要求相矛盾。

第三本非英国报纸来自奥地利。莫妮卡·斯特姆科夫斯基（Monika Stemkowski）对807个监狱和法院档案进行的艰苦分析（此问题添加链接）表明，有条件释放的“全面准备和管理”应包括提供支持和治疗以及一定程度的控制。比较研究的另一种形式是反思释放在精神病院中被拘留者以及释放囚犯。两者都受类似的“基于风险”的释放机制的约束。在过去的15年中，奥地利的定罪和吊销证件的减少令人鼓舞。Stemkowski认为可以改善假释时间的准备和管理-在实际释放之前更多地临时释放，以及更好地将支持和监视与后者更好地结合在一起，这可以通过增加使用与药物和禁欲等问题相关的指令来证明酒精或毒品。结构化的“护理设施”和适当的药物治疗是未来研究的重要领域，尤其是整个释放期间精神病学和其他实践支持的连续性。

我们的下一项研究是由Lynn Kelly，Gill McIvor和Karen Richard（此问题添加链接）进行的，他们对197位长期囚犯的苏格兰调查探索了他们寻求早日释放假释的经历。他们认为，在假释听证之前，之中和之后对囚犯的更好支持可能会促进他们的参与度并减轻与假释过程相关的一些焦虑感。这项研究增加了文献，表明假释通常被视为对囚犯的事情，而不是与他们交往的过程自己康复。正如他们所暗示的那样，有效的囚犯参与不仅对于使程序具有一定的合法性很重要，而且长期不参与犯罪活动也与囚犯对该程序的归属感有关。这项研究为通过假释和指导在假释过程中各个阶段增加对囚犯的支持的潜在好处增加了文献。

该问题中的两项研究集中于与服役于公共保护的英语和威尔士刑罚的囚犯有关的问题。虽然在2012年废除了这一判决，但“在系统内”服刑的囚犯人数继续“给司法系统蒙上了长长的阴影”（见哈里斯等人，本期）。实际上已经释放了许多IPP囚犯，但被召回（并且被召回不止一次）的人数继续增加。Mia Harris，Kimmett Edgar和Russell Webster（此问题添加链接）探讨了被召回IPP囚犯的经历。他们的主题与所有被判无期徒刑的囚犯息息相关。在社区和监狱中自我施加的社会隔离；和深刻的绝望感。IPP等服刑不定的人经常感到被困在不公正和不可避免的监禁周期中，对积极的未来几乎没有信心。在国际植检门户网站囚犯的情况下，其刑罚的“惩罚”或“关税”部分往往相对较短，这一点与强制性无期徒刑相比，可能会加剧无助，沮丧，焦虑和社会孤立感。被召回的IPP囚犯由于担心自己的行为可能导致对他们的风险产生负面推论（并因此认为适合再释放）而变得警惕。Harris等人中的IPP囚犯。的研究描述了对心理健康问题的延误或避免寻求帮助，原因是担心这可能会导致他们被视为“危险”者，并被召回或拒绝释放。需要保密的心理健康支持“公开讨论该句子的有害后果，而无需进一步陷入其中”（第xx页），这一主题与麦克肯迪和里查德利在加拿大的研究结果清楚地呼应。

克里斯蒂娜·斯特劳布（Christina Straub）和哈里·安妮森（Harry Annison）（此问题添加链接）异常且非常有用，研究了IPP刑罚和相关的假释程序对家庭成员造成的精神压力。有据可查的监狱对囚犯家庭的情感和精神影响有据可查，例如儿童的焦虑，抑郁和行为困难，而国际刑警的判决往往会加剧这种情况。家庭将句子的不确定性和假释程序的不确定性描述为构成压力的重要来源，其累积影响可能对任何或所有成员产生长期，严重的心理和生理健康影响。利用大量的神经科学，神经内分泌和犯罪学文献，

最后，在本卷中，克里斯·戴克（Chris Dyke），凯伦·舒坎·伯德（Karen Schucan Bird）和卡罗尔·里瓦斯（Carol Rivas）（此问题添加链接）探讨了与亲密伴侣暴力行为肇事者有关的释放决定。本文提出了关于心理健康的不太明确的问题，但提出了影响假释委员会决策的重要问题。发现委员会倾向于根据专业人员的建议释放/推进囚犯，只要他们对这些专业人员的专业知识和管理风险的能力有信心。对以犯罪为重点的干预措施完成的积极反馈还与释放的可能性增加有关，特别是如果囚犯的诚实和正直也给委员会留下了深刻的印象。他们争辩说，亲密伴侣的暴力行为对假释委员会构成了特殊挑战，因为其性别和私人性质以及与再犯的复杂关系。例如，他们的研究表明，与具有控制人格的人相比，暴力与“明显的危险因素”（例如，酗酒和滥用毒品，精神健康不稳定，网络脱离接触）相关的人在变得暴力之前更容易被召回。 （“亲密恐怖分子”）。结果，后者很少被释放，而那些暴力更加混乱的人-但是其风险可能更容易被发现-被假释的可能性可能会高出六倍。这一重要发现的含义显然值得所有囚犯进一步考虑。例如，他们的研究表明，与具有控制人格的人相比，暴力与“明显的危险因素”（例如，酗酒和滥用毒品，精神健康不稳定，网络脱离接触）相关的人在变得暴力之前更容易被召回。 （“亲密恐怖分子”）。结果，后者很少被释放，而那些暴力程度更高（但其风险可能更容易被发现）的人被假释的可能性要高六倍。这一重要发现的含义显然值得所有囚犯进一步考虑。例如，他们的研究表明，与具有控制人格的人相比，暴力与“明显的危险因素”（例如，酗酒和滥用毒品，精神健康不稳定，网络脱离接触）相关的人在变得暴力之前更容易被召回。 （“亲密恐怖分子”）。结果，后者很少被释放，而那些暴力更加混乱的人-但是其风险可能更容易被发现-被假释的可能性可能会高出六倍。这一重要发现的含义显然值得所有囚犯进一步考虑。相较于具有控制性格的人（“亲密恐怖分子”）。结果，后者很少被释放，而那些暴力程度更高但可能更容易发现其风险的人则被假释的可能性要高六倍。这一重要发现的含义显然值得所有囚犯进一步考虑。相较于具有控制性格的人（“亲密恐怖分子”）。结果，后者很少被释放，而那些暴力更加混乱的人-但是其风险可能更容易被发现-被假释的可能性可能会高出六倍。这一重要发现的含义显然值得所有囚犯进一步考虑。

该主题版本的贡献来自一系列学科和司法管辖区，探讨了精神健康与假释之间关系的不同方面。他们向囚犯发出声音，并以此确定“国家”与“囚犯”之间权力的不平衡。这采取多种形式，包括获得信息和服务以及特权的专业话语权，这破坏了透明度，并限制了在监狱和释放后的假释程序中的有意义的参与和参与。

出现了许多重要的信息。首先，释放假释后的体验质量如何有助于更好的结果。第二，他们重申了满足囚犯实际需求的重要性，但是该系统在这方面仍然不足。尽管在许多辖区仍然难以实施，但政策和实践的明确指示仍来自其发现。

这些研究的第三个关键信息涉及承认假释过程中所涉人员的多样性的重要性。Stempkowski的发现发现，通过更多地使用规定性要求来增强控制能力似乎与男性改善结局有关，这似乎与McKendy和Ricciardelli的发现形成鲜明对比，后者的发现是，监督的控制方面可能会破坏监督者与监督者之间“工作联盟”的发展。女性假释。相反，我们认为，它指出了性别作为响应因素的重要性，这表明似乎与大多数囚犯（男人）“共事”的方法在吸引和支持妇女中的迫害中可能不太有效。戴克等。关于假释决定如何受到因亲密伴侣暴力定罪的男性特征的塑造的讨论，鼓励人们进一步关注如何识别和定义在不同囚犯群体中可控制的风险。需要进一步关注在精神健康问题囚犯中如何最好地概念化和管理风险。

该系列文章的第四个重要贡献是，它们通过重点关注服刑的囚犯家庭，进一步阐明了监禁和假释的一些附带影响。虽然假释的可能性可以使一些囚犯及其家人感到乐观和希望，但对许多人来说，这与焦虑，绝望和沮丧有关。传统上与假释程序和假释委员会的决定相关的“保密”和缺乏透明度似乎使这些感觉更加复杂。

第五点是，与假释程序相关的焦虑和压力表明，囚犯需要更好地理解假释程序并在此过程中感到更多的支持。广泛获得相关支持（例如指导和倡导）可能会有所帮助。

最后，也许是最令人担忧的是，发现一些囚犯由于担心会影响他们的假释成功机会而主动避免寻求与精神健康问题有关的帮助。这是必须解决的问题。心理健康对假释决策的影响以及被认为会影响假释决策的方式，以及假释过程对囚犯心理健康的影响，显然是值得进一步研究的领域，尤其是在人们日益关注的情况下。至少英国-关于囚犯自杀率的上升。

从表面上看，从这一系列文件中得出的一些结论可能是显而易见的：如果某人从无家可归者的监狱中被释放，或仅在短时间内被送到一个混乱的旅馆中，则他们更有可能与之接触。酒精，毒品和其他“致犯罪性”影响。结果，与那些被释放为真正的支持和支持住所的人相比，他们更有可能被再次冒犯并被重新判入监狱。尽管如此，在英国，和其他司法管辖区一样，提供满足囚犯需要的住宿和其他服务，包括至关重要的是提供精神卫生服务，仍然是一项持续的挑战。妇女罪犯委员会（2012），例如，强调了在苏格兰重新释放囚犯方面没有国家战略。此外，从国际上对假释或其他形式的任意释放囚犯的召回率不断上升的担忧可以看出，各国政府感到有必要进行控制和管理。我们希望这些研究可以说服他们，支持 和信任同等重要，并且，如果要使遵守不仅仅是为了表象和持久的需求，那么对他们的支持和信任确实是必要的。