NCJ Number
16657
Journal
Oklahoma Law Review Volume: 27 Issue: 4 Dated: (FALL 1974) Pages: 634-659
Date Published
1974
Length
26 pages
Annotation
RECOMMENDS REALLOCATING THE PAROLE FUNCTION TO THE JUDICIARY IN THE INTERESTS OF OPENNESS, FAIRNESS, AND ECONOMY.
Abstract
IT IS ARGUED THAT SINCE THE JUDICIARY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING THE REQUIREMENT FOR INCARCERATION, IT SHOULD LOGICALLY SHOULDER THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR DETERMINING THE FITNESS OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO RETURN TO SOCIETY. AFTER AN INMATE'S FILING OF A VERIFIED PETITION ALLEGING FITNESS FOR PAROLE, A DISTRICT COURT WOULD HOLD AN ADVERSARY HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PETITIONER SHOULD BE GRANTED PAROLE STATUS. THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DIVISION OF PROBATION AND PAROLE WOULD MAINTAIN JURISDICTION OVER THE PAROLEE UNTIL SENTENCE EXPIRATION. THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS MAY BE ASKED TO REVIEW THE DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT. THE BOARD OF PARDONS AND THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF STATE GOVERNMENT WOULD RETAIN THE POWER OF PARDON AND COMMUTATION. UNDER THE RECOMMENDED SYSTEM THE PRISONER WOULD BE ABLE TO PRESENT IN COURT THE FACTS AND ARGUMENTS HE DEEMS FAVORABLE FOR HIS PAROLE AND CROSS-EXAMINE ANY EVIDENCE PRESENTED AGAINST HIS PAROLE. THE PARTICULAR DISTRICT COURT TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR A CERTAIN PAROLE HEARING IS VIEWED AS A PROBLEM REQUIRING FURTHER CONSIDERATION.