FAIR PAROLE REVIEW?
“Presumptive parole
Presumptive parole is a system in which incarcerated individuals are released upon first becoming eligible for parole unless the parole board finds explicit reasons to not release them. This approach flips the current parole approach on its head, so that release on parole is the expected outcome, rather than one that must be argued for. Under this framework, an incarcerated person who meets certain preset conditions will automatically be released at a predetermined date.
How parole boards make decisions
Parole decisions are often tricky to predict or interpret. We explain the (often faulty) logic that informs parole decisions.
Currently, parole boards treat continued confinement as the default and must justify why someone should be released. Logically, parole should only be denied if the board can prove that the individual has exhibited specific behaviors that indicate a public safety risk (repeated violent episodes in prison, refusal to participate in programming, aggressive correspondence with the victim, etc). But parole board members – who are almost exclusively gubernatorial appointees – may lose their jobs for merely considering to release someone sentenced to life, or for releasing someone who unexpectedly goes on to commit another crime. As a result, many parole boards and their controlling statutes routinely stray from evidence-based questions about safety (see sidebar, right).
The subjectivity of the current process is powerfully illustrated by the tremendous variations in the rate at which states grant parole at parole hearings, which vary from a high of 87% in Nebraska to a low of 7% in Ohio, with many states granting parole to just 20% to 30% of the individuals who are eligible.”
______________________________
A bill needs to be filed in the upcoming session to promote this most sensible and fair approach to parole review. The current system has the parole commissioners acting like judges but without any of the due process protections in a real court of law.