NCJ Number
93774
Journal
New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement Volume: 10 Issue: 1 Dated: (Winter 1984) Pages: 193-214
Date Published
1984
Length
24 pages
Annotation
This essay evaluates whether Massachusetts' proposed restrictions on parole release eligibility will actually promote certainty in sentencing and discusses how the rehabilitative function of parole is affected, the relationship between parole restrictions and sentencing goals, and the propriety of legislative trends from a sentencing policy perspective.
Abstract
Parole has been denounced for the failure of its rehabilitative function as well as its contribution to disparity and uncertainty in sentencing. In response to these criticisms, Massachusetts has two bills before the legislature: The Sentencing Reform Bill and the Lewis-White Bill. Both bills focus on increasing certainty in the sentencing process and rely heavily on reducing a judge's discretion in imposing a sentence by decreasing the range of years available under the present law. To increase certainty in sentencing, both proposals restrict parole release eligibility. The Sentencing Reform Bill proposes a uniform two-thirds rule for parole eligibility, i.e., all prisoners are required to serve two-thirds of their sentence before gaining parole eligibility. While this proposal will not hamper parole's rehabilitative function, it may promote the policies of incapacitation and retribution. The pending Lewis-White Bill proposes the elimination of parole board discretion to determine an inmate's parole release data. This removes one of the prisoner's traditional incentives to undergo rehabilitation and thereby de-emphasizes the rehabilitative function of parole. Both the Lewis-White Bill and the Sentencing Reform Bill may function to increase the length of incarceration, which would prove troublesome to already overcrowded prisons. Before abandoning rehabilitation policy or implementing parole restrictions that emphasize other sentencing policies, it must be determined whether society can afford to forsake its commitment to the rehabilitation of offenders in favor of sentencing goals (deterrence, incapacitation, and punishment) whose achievement and effects have yet to be reliably validated. A total of 155 footnotes are provided.