NCJ Number
94252
Journal
Boston University Law Review Volume: 63 Issue: 3 Dated: (1983) Pages: 673-716
Date Published
1983
Length
44 pages
Annotation
This note examines whether the United States Parole Commission's use of dismissed and acquitted offense in fixing the Offense Severity index violates principles of double jeopardy. The note concludes that the Commission's use of these unconvicted offenses may violate the double jeopardy clause.
Abstract
The Commission utilizes guidelines governing the calculations of an inmate's offense severity and salient factor ratings, and providing a table using these ratings to compute the time each offender must serve before release. The Commission bases 80 percent of its parole release dates on these guidelines. The Commission may consider additional factors and circumstances of the offender's behavior in the incident from which the offense stems. The courts have thus far rejected arguments that, as the inmate is implicitly or explicitly adjudged innocent of these incidents at trial, they should not be held as admissible in parole calculations. One line of reasoning courts advance in rejecting these arguments is that the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy applies only to judicial criminal proceedings. Another basis for rejecting double jeopardy claims involving parole is that neither the denial or revocation of parole, nor the deprivation of good time credits constitutes punishment for purposes of the double jeopardy clause. The use of acquitted and dismissed charges to increase the length of an inmate's incarceration does constitute punishment as obviously as it constitutes a second judgement made on the acts in question. Many parole decisions potentially involve punishment after acquittal and offend the values that have been protected by the double jeopardy clause since its inclusion into constitutional law. An appendix presents the guidelines for decisionmaking in parole considerations. A total of 263 notes are included.