CHANGES IN SENTENCING AND PAROLE DECISION MAKING 1976-1978

• NCJ Number: 59018
• Author(s): L F TRAVIS; V O'LEARY
• Date Published: 1979
• Length: 62 pages
• Grant Number(s): AF2
• Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Corrections
• Corporate Author: National Parole Institutes
• Sale Source: National Council on Crime and Delinquency
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: *This document is currently unavailable from NCJRS.

Annotation

THIS REPORT DISCUSSES RECENT REFORMS IN THE PAROLE AND SENTENCING PROCESSES, A DEFINITION AND HISTORY OF PAROLE, ARGUMENTS ABOUT PAROLE, AND THE FUTURE OF PAROLE IN THE UNITED STATES.

Abstract

PAROLE ACCOUNTS FOR NEARLY 70 PERCENT OF ALL RELEASES FROM PRISON IN THE UNITED STATES. ALTHOUGH THE ORGANIZATION, STRUCTURE, AND POLICIES OF PAROLE AUTHORITIES VARY WIDELY AMONG JURISDICTIONS, PAROLE ADMINISTRATIONS IN ALL JURISDICTIONS SHARE FIVE COMMON CHARACTERISTICS: (1) PAROLE IS A FORM OF RELEASE FROM INCARCERATION, (2) SELECTION FOR PAROLE RELEASE IS DISCRETIONARY, (3) THE AUTHORITY TO RELEASE RESTS WITH AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, (4) PAROLE RELEASE INVOLVES THE CONTROL OR SUPERVISION OF THOSE RELEASED, AND (5) RELEASE IS CONDITIONAL AND THE PAROLE AUTHORITY RETAINS THE POWER TO REVOKE LIBERTY. THE HISTORY OF PAROLE IS SURVEYED FROM ITS BEGINNINGS IN 1876 IN ELMIRA, N.Y., TO THE 1970'S. MOST OF THE CRITICISM OF PAROLE CENTERS ON THE DISCRETIONARY POWER GRANTED TO PAROLE AUTHORITIES, WITH ITS UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS OF THE EFFICACY OF TREATMENT AND THE ABILITY TO PREDICT FUTURE CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR. LEGISLATIVE REFORMS CONCERNING PAROLE HAVE TENDED TO REDUCE, RATHER THAN STRUCTURE, PAROLE DISCRETION. SINCE 1976, NINE STATE HAVE ENACTED LEGISLATION THAT ELIMINATES OR RADICALLY REDUCES DISCRETIONARY PAROLE RELEASE. THESE ARE ARIZONA, ALASKA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MAINE, MINNESOTA, AND NEW MEXICO. PAROLE REFORM EFFORTS ARE DETAILED FOR MINNESOTA, NEW YORK, OREGON, CALIFORNIA, AND INDIANA. THE CONSEQUENCES OF REFORMS IN SENTENCING AND PAROLE ARE DISCUSSED, RELATING TO DISCRETIONARY CONSEQUENCES, SENTENCING JUDGES, CORRECTIONAL OFFICIALS, PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION, AND PHILOSOPHICAL RATIONALES AND RECENT REFORMS. IT IS NOTED THAT REDUCING THE DISCRETIONARY POWER OF PAROLE BOARDS AND SENTENCING JUDGES WITHOUT PROVIDING CONCOMITANT RESTRICTION ON THE DISCRETION OF PROSECUTORS AND CORRECTIONAL OFFICIALS MAY RESULT IN THE FAILURE TO CONTROL IMPROPER USE OF DISCRETIONARY POWER. RESULTS OF A 1978 DELPHI SURVEY TO OBTAIN FORECASTS FROM A GROUP OF EXPERTS ABOUT THE FUTURE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE BRING UP A NUMBER OF ISSUES CONCERNING CONTROL OF CRIMINAL SENTENCE DETERMINATION, THE PURPOSE OF CRIMINAL LAW, AND LEGITIMATE STATE INTERESTS IN SENTENCING. FOOTNOTES AND AN APPENDIX ARE INCLUDED. (PRG)