NCJ Number
100570
Date Published
1985
Length
42 pages
Annotation
The courts have sought to ensure due process rights for persons affected by parole-related decisions, and Federal parole guidelines aim at reducing decision disparity, although the guidelines have been criticized for various reasons.
Abstract
Court decisions bearing upon due process rights for parolees pertain to revocation hearings (Morrissey v. Brewer), legal assistance at revocation hearings (Gagnon v. Scarpelli), and the scheduling of revocation hearings (Moody v. Daggett). Other parole-relevant court decisions pertain to hearings for loss of good time (Wolff v. McDonnell), parole rescission proceedings (Jago v. Van Curen), and the constitutional right to parole (Greenholtz v. Nebraska). Federal parole guidelines were developed to specify decisionmaking criteria and reduce disparity in parole decisions. A key issue has been management of the presentence report used by the Federal Parole Board in its decisionmaking. Some criticisms of the parole guidelines are that they are based on offenses for which the prisoner was not convicted, resentence prisoners, ignore judicial expectations, and fail to consider favorable prison performance. Overall, however, Parole Commission regulations go far beyond constitutional requirements for safeguarding the rights of Federal prisoners. 285 footnotes.