COPING WITH MORRISSEY V BREWER AND GAGNON V SCARPELLI DO WE NEED A NEW INTERSTATE COMPACT (FROM SOUTHERN CONFERENCE ON CORRECTIONS, ANNUAL, 20TH, 1975 BY VERNON FOX - SEE NCJ-30775)

• NCJ Number: 30777
• Author(s): R CRANE
• Date Published: 1975
• Length: 12 pages
• Corporate Author: Florida State University
• Publication Format: Document
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

THE PAROLE REVOCATION PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF THESE CASES ARE SAID TO PRESENT PAROLE AGENCIES WITH UNNECESSARY DIFFICULTIES IN CASES INVOLVING OUT-OF-STATE PAROLE SUPERVISION OR CONVICTION FOR A NEW OFFENSE.

Abstract

THESE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS REQUIRE A PRELIMINARY PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING AT OR NEAR THE PLACE OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION - A GREAT INCONVENIENCE WHEN THE VIOLATION OCCURS IN ANOTHER STATE, OR WHEN THE PAROLE HAS ABSCONDED. ALSO REQUIRED IS A REVOCATION HEARING BEFORE A NEUTRAL BODY - A COMPLICATED ISSUE IN CASES WHERE THE PAROLEE HAS BEEN CONVICTED FOR A NEW OFFENSE AND INCARCERATED, SINCE SOME COURTS HAVE RULED THAT DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS PRECLUDE DELAYING THE HEARING UNTIL THE PAROLEE HAS BEEN RELEASED. THE AUTHOR RECOMMENDS IMPLEMENTATION OF INTERSTATE AGREEMENTS BY WHICH THE PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING WOULD BE CONDUCTED BY PAROLE AUTHORITIES OF THE STATE IN WHICH THE PAROLE VIOLATION OCCURRED. CONFLICTING COURT OPINIONS ON THE EFFECT OF DELAY OF A REVOCATION HEARING UPON DUE PROCESS RIGHTS IS SAID TO POINT TO THE NEED FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISIONS.