HOW THE NORTH CAROLINA PAROLE COMMISSION MAKES DECISIONS

• NCJ Number: 52190
• Journal: Popular Government Volume: 42 Issue: 2 Dated: (FALL 1976) Pages: 19-25
• Author(s): C A COSGROVE
• Date Published: 1976
• Length: 7 pages
• Corporate Author: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Government
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

A STUDY THAT DEVELOPED A CASE EVALUATION FORM AND PRELIMINARY DECISIONMAKING GUIDELINES TO REFLECT THE UNWRITTEN CRITERIA FOR SCREENING CANDIDATES FOR PAROLE IN NORTH CAROLINA IS DESCRIBED.

Abstract

THIS STUDY IS PART OF A LARGER STUDY OF SEVEN PAROLING AUTHORITIES. THE GUIDELINE MODEL DEVELOPED FOR NORTH CAROLINA IS CONSIDERED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OTHER SIX. AT A MEETING WITH THE RESEARCH STAFF IN FEBRUARY OF 1975, THE PAROLE COMMISSIONERS DESCRIBED THEIR PAROLE CRITERIA AND POLICIES. THEY INDICATED THAT, UNLIKE THE UNITED STATES BOARD OF PAROLE, THEY ARE NOT PRIMARILY CONCERNED WITH THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE OFFENSE FOR WHICH INCARCERATION OCCURRED. SINCE STATE STATUTES REQUIRE THAT AN INMATE SERVE ONE-FOURTH OF HIS SENTENCE BEFORE HE IS ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE, THE PAROLE COMMISSIONERS CONSIDER THAT THE JUDGE VIEWS THIS PORTION OF THE IMPRISONMENT AS BEING SUFFICIENT FOR RETRIBUTIVE AND DETERRENT PURPOSES. THE COMMISSION DOES NOT, THEREFORE, PAROLE OR EXTEND IMPRISONMENT BASED ON ITS JUDGMENT AS TO THE LENGTH OF IMPRISONMENT REQUIRED FOR A PARTICULAR OFFENSE. THE COMMISSIONERS AGREED THEY WERE PRIMARILY CONCERNED ABOUT THE DANGER THE INMATE WOULD POSE TO THE COMMUNITY IF PAROLED. IN DETERMINING THIS, CRIMINAL RECORD, LENGTH OF TIME BETWEEN OFFENSES, AND RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PERIODS OF COMMUNITY SUPERVISION WERE INDICATED TO BE CONSIDERED. THE RESEARCH TEAM SUBSEQUENTLY GATHERED INFORMATION ON 3,300 DECISIONS AND FROM THIS DATA DEVELOPED A SCREENING MODEL OF DECISIONMAKING THAT DELINEATED THE MAJOR CATEGORIES OF CRITERIA USED IN DECISIONMAKING AND THE GUIDELINES EMPLOYED FOR DECISIONS AT VARIOUS STAGES OF THE SCREENING PROCESS. THE MODEL WAS BASICALLY CONFIRMED IN PRACTICE BY THE COMMISSIONERS. IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS MODEL FOR PAROLE DECISIONMAKING IS APPROPRIATE IN STATES WHERE INMATES MUST SERVE A FIXED PROPORTION OF THEIR MAXIMUM SENTENCE BEFORE BECOMING ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE; A MODEL BASED ON THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE OFFENSE AND PAROLE PROGNOSIS WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIAE IN STATES WHERE THE INMATE IS ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE AT THE DISCRETION OF THE PAROLE BOARD. SAMPLES OF THE CASE EVALUATION FORM, PRELIMINARY GUIDELINES, THE PRIOR CRIMINAL RECORD CLASSIFICATION, AND THE INSTITUTIONAL DISCIPLINE CLASSIFICATION FORMS ARE PROVIDED. (RCB)