Criminal Law Newsletter
| Publication year | 1981 |
| Pages | 2278 |
1981, September, Pg. 2278. Criminal Law Newsletter
In 1976 the U.S. Board of Parole of the Department of Justice, working with the Subcommittee on National Penitentiaries, proposed H.R. 5727, popularly known as the Parole Commission and Reorganization Act ("Act").(fn1) The express purpose of the Act was to replace the U.S. Board of parole with the U.S. Parole Commission and to provide for certain changes in parole practices and procedures.(fn2) The legislative history to the Act states as one of its objectives the discharge of offenders who have achieved rehabilitation.
From an historical perspective, parole originated as a form of clemency; to mitigate unusually harsh sentences, or to reward prison inmates for their exemplary behavior while incarcerated. Parole today, however, has taken a much broader goal in correctional policy, fulfilling different specific objectives of the correctional system. Parole is an extension of the sentencing process. (Emphasis added.)(fn3)
Many critics of the federal parole process, however, view the U.S. Parole Commission's practices as tantamount to the resentencing of the offender.
The Parole Commission meets at least quarterly to promulgate rules and regulations establishing guidelines for decision-making in setting parole release dates.(fn4) The Parole Commission has adopted a matrix system which fixes release dates on the basis of its characterization of severity of the offense for which the prisoner is committed and a parole prognosis known as a "salient factor score."
Even though a federal offender stands convicted of a relatively minor offense pursuant to a plea bargain, the Parole Commission freely considers any credible information of greater offense conduct turning up in investigative or prosecutor's reports. Thus, a defendant who pleads guilty to lesser or fewer charges than those originally filed is likely to have his offense behavior graded on the basis of all information of criminal misconduct contained in the government's files.
For example, if an accused pleads guilty to the theft of one automobile but the government's evidence suggests that he was involved in a car theft ring involving ten or fifteen vehicles, the prisoner will likely find his offense characteristics elevated from low moderate or moderate severity to high or very high severity.(fn5) This can elevate the offender's release date anywhere from six months to four and one-half years.
Obviously, the Parole Commission cannot change the terms of the sentence imposed by the court. However, the manner in which the sentence is executed and the actual time spent in confinement can be materially altered by the Parole Commission's decision-making process. Accordingly, two offenders convicted of identical offenses and possessing the same salient factor score may find their release dates varying by months or even years.
Although the Parole Commission espouses the policy of promoting "a more consistent exercise of discretion ... and more equitable decision-making without removing individual case consideration...," the application of these guidelines can actually generate gross inequities.(fn6) The most grievous results attach to indeterminate sentences, e.g., the federal Youth Corrections Act,(fn7) adult indeterminate sentences,(fn8) and the Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act of 1966.(fn9) An...
To continue reading
Request your trial