NCJ Number
19592
Journal
Yale Law Journal Volume: 84 Issue: 4 Dated: (MARCH 1975) Pages: 810-902
Date Published
1975
Length
93 pages
Annotation
REPORT WHICH ANALYZES RECENT IMPROVEMENTS AND INNOVATIONS IN THE PAROLE RELEASE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS THAT HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED BY THE UNITED STATES BOARD OF PAROLE.
Abstract
AMERICAN SENTENCING IS AFFLICTED WITH WHAT IS KNOWN AS THE SLOVIK SYNDROME: THE EXPECTATION THAT THE SENTENCE WILL NOT BE FULLY CARRIED OUT. AS A RESULT, AMERICAN JUDGES TEND TO IMPOSE LONG SENTENCES ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT PAROLE WILL BE ACCORDED AT SOME POINT - USUALLY AFTER ONE-THIRD OF THE SENTENCE HAS BEEN SERVED. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AUTHOR CONTENDS, THE PAROLE RELEASE DECISION IS OFTEN MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE SENTENCE IN DETERMINING HOW LONG PRISONERS ACTUALLY SPEND INCARCERATED. PART ONE DETAILS THE BASIC FEATURES OF THE FEDERAL PAROLE SYSTEM AND CRITICISMS OF PAST PROCEDURES. ALSO DESCRIBED IS THE INTRODUCTION OF AN EXPLICIT, DETAILED 'GUIDELINE TABLE' THAT DETERMINES (USING 'OFFENSE SEVERITY' AND 'RISK PREDICTION' INDICES) HOW LONG AN INMATE MUST SERVE PRIOR TO RELEASE. (THIS APPROACH WAS DESIGNED TO STANDARDIZE THE DIFFERENT EXPECTATIONS OF THE SENTENCING JUDGES AS TO WHAT PROPORTION OF THE SENTENCE THE OFFENDER WOULD SERVE BEFORE BEING PAROLED). PART TWO OF THIS REPORT CONSIDERS THE MINIMUM CONDITIONAL AND STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO PAROLE RELEASE HEARINGS, AND THEN SUGGESTS THOSE PROCEDURES THAT ARE BEST DESIGNED TO INSURE FAIRNESS AND ACCURACY IN THE PAROLE DECISION. PART THREE EXAMINES THE LEGALITY OF THE PAROLE GUIDELINES' SUBSTANTIVE CRITERIA FOR DECISION-MAKING. PART FOUR DISCUSSES THE IMPLICATIONS OF PRESENT PAROLE RELEASE DECISION-MAKING FOR THE SENTENCING PROCESS AND FOR THE LARGER CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. IN PARTICULAR, JUDICIAL BELIEFS AND ATTITUDES ABOUT PAROLE AND SENTENCING ARE EXPLORED ON THE BASIS OF A QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY OF SENTENCING JUDGES. IN CONCLUSION, THE REPORT CITES TEN SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH INCLUDE HAVING THE COURTS (NOT THE PAROLE BOARD) ASSUME PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ELIMINATING DISPARITIES IN SENTENCING; REQUIRING THE COURTS TO ARTICULATE THE REASONS FOR IMPOSING A GIVEN SENTENCE SO THAT THE BOARD CAN BETTER TAKE THE SENTENCE INTO ACCOUNT IN APPLYING THE GUIDELINES; AND ALLOWING THE INMATE'S COUNSEL TO PERFORM CERTAIN ADVERSARIAL FUNCTIONS AT PAROLE RELEASE HEARINGS. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED) (SNI ABSTRACT)