NCJ Number
35334
Journal
Boston University Law Review Volume: 56 Issue: 2 Dated: (MARCH 1976) Pages: 379-406
Date Published
1976
Length
28 pages
Annotation
THE AUTHOR DISCUSSES VARIOUS AND CONFLICTING US CIRCUIT COURT DECISIONS REGARDING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE US BOARD OF PAROLE'S REGULATIONS FOR THE TREATMENT OF PAROLEES IMPRISONED FOR NEW CRIMES COMMITTED ON RELEASE.
Abstract
A DETAINER IS LODGED PURSUANT TO AN UNEXECUTED PAROLE VIOLATOR'S WARRANT AT THE CUSTODIAL INSTITUTION, AND THE PAROLE REVOCATION HEARING IS DEFERRED UNTIL AFTER SERVICE OF THE INTERVENING SENTENCE. MAINTENANCE OF THE DETAINER USUALLY CAUSES LOSS OF PRISON PRIVILEGES, AND DEFERRAL OF THE REVOCATION HEARING MAY PROLONG THE PERIOD OF IMPRISONMENT. THE CIRCUIT COURT DECISIONS ON DUE PROCESS ARGUMENTS CONCERNING THESE REGULATIONS ARE ANALYZED AND CRITICIZED. THE AUTHOR ARGUES THAT THERE IS NO DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS. THE INDIVIDUAL HAS ONLY A MARGINAL INTEREST IN MORE EXPENSIVE PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS. THE BOARD'S CURRENT REGULATIONS REFLECT AN AWARENESS OF THE OPERATIVE DUE PROCESS PRINCIPLES AND, THROUGH THE COMBINED USE OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND ORAL HEARINGS, EFFECTIVELY ACCOMMODATE THE INDIVIDUAL'S INTEREST IN FAIR TREATMENT AND THE BOARD'S OWN INSTITUTIONAL NEEDS. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)