NCJ Number
12925
Journal
St John's Law Review Volume: 48 Issue: 1 Dated: (OCTOBER 1973) Pages: 1-47
Date Published
1973
Length
47 pages
Annotation
DUE PROCESS, INCLUDING RIGHT TO A HEARING AND TO WRITTEN REASONS FOR REVOCATION, LIMITS THE DISCRETION OF THE PAROLE BOARD AND INCREASES THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PAROLE AS A REHABILITATIVE TOOL.
Abstract
INMATES AT ATTICA STATE PRISON INDICATED THAT THEIR MAJOR SOURCE OF DISSATISFACTION WITH THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM WAS THE PAROLE SYSTEM. THE AUTHOR CONTENDS THAT THE RULES FOR PAROLEES ARE NOT PRIMARILY INTENDED FOR REHABILITATION. RATHER, THEY ARE RULES FOR RULES' SAKE AND THEY SERVE TO FACILITATE THE REVOCATION PROCESS FOR THE PAROLE BOARD. THE PRESENCE OF COUNSEL (ALTHOUGH IN A NON-ADVERSARIAL ROLE) AND THE EXPANSION OF DUE PROCESS WILL HELP TO ALLAY THE PAROLEE'S FEAR OF AN ARBITRARY DECISION. THE RECENT SUPREME COURT DECISION IN MORRISSEY V. BREWER MARKS A BROAD ATTEMPT BY THE COURT TO RECTIFY MANY OF THE INJUSTICES WHICH CAN RESULT FROM THE ABSENCE OF PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS AT PAROLE REVOCATION HEARINGS. MORRISSEY HERALDS A NEW ERA FOR NEW YORK IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF PAROLE REVOCATION. PRELIMINARY HEARINGS MUST BE HELD AND NOTICE OF THE REVOCATION HEARING PROVIDED THE PAROLEE, WHO MUST BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT WITNESSES AND TO CONFRONT AND CROSS EXAMINE ADVERSE WITNESSES. FOR THE FIRST TIME IN NEW YORK, THE FACTFINDERS ARE REQUIRED TO PRESENT A WRITTEN STATEMENT AS TO THE EVIDENCE RELIED ON AND THEIR REASONS FOR REVOKING PAROLE. A LISTING OF THE GENERAL RULES GOVERNING PAROLE IN NEW YORK STATE IS INCLUDED. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)