NCJ Number
88271
Journal
Criminal Law Bulletin Volume: 19 Issue: 2 Dated: (March-April 1983) Pages: 101-130
Date Published
1983
Length
30 pages
Annotation
New determinate sentencing laws in seven States (Maine, California, Illinois, Indiana, Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico) have had a significant impact on each State's parole system, virtually eliminating parole boards' role in making release decisions.
Abstract
Parole is closely allied with the indeterminate sentence and the rehabilitative ideal. If States adopt a strict 'just deserts' philosophy, there is no place for a parole system. The movement toward determinate sentencing in the seven States resulted in the almost total abolition of parole board release decisionmaking. Each state except Maine retained parole supervision; Arizona has the only system that kept both discretionary release and parole supervision until sentence expiration. Legislatures seemed uncomfortable with just deserts (limited prison terms uniformly imposed) and prescribed lengthier sentences, perhaps in response to a perceived public demand to 'get tough' on crime. This rejection of just deserts tenets has resulted in large time-reduction decisions by correctional staff. If parole boards are to make time-reduction decisions, it may be possible for them to coexist with determinate sentencing. Parole boards' use of guidelines could achieve the ends of determinacy by eliminating accusations of 'tyranny.' State-by-State study data, comparisons, and footnotes are supplied.