1932

Abstract

Parole board decision making has changed dramatically over the last century, mirroring broader trends in criminal punishment. Even though parole decisions affect the length of prison sentences and the US Supreme Court has safeguarded defendants’ rights during the sentencing phase of criminal proceedings, the court has largely declined to interfere in parole. After briefly surveying the historical evolution of parole in the United States, this article proceeds in two parts. First, the article analyzes Supreme Court cases involving sentencing and parole and discusses questions raised by those decisions. Second, the article examines modern studies of parole board decisions and highlights ethical and legal questions raised by the research.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-051121-070621
2021-10-13
2024-06-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lawsocsci/17/1/annurev-lawsocsci-051121-070621.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-051121-070621&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Alleyne v. United States 570 U.S. 99 2013.)
  2. Anwar S, Fang H. 2015. Testing for racial prejudice in the parole board release process: theory and evidence. J. Legal Stud. 44:1–37
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Apprendi v. New Jersey 530 U.S. 466 2000.)
  4. Atkins v. Virginia 536 U.S. 304 2002.)
  5. Ball WD. 2009. Heinous, atrocious, and cruel: Apprendi, indeterminate sentencing, and the meaning of punishment. Columbia Law Rev 109:893–972
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Barefoot v. Estelle 463 U.S. 880 1983.)
  7. Barkow RE. 2019. Prisoners of Politics: Breaking the Cycle of Mass Incarceration Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bell K. 2019. A stone of hope: legal and empirical analysis of California juvenile lifer parole decisions. Harvard Civ. Rights-Civ. Lib. Law Rev. 54:455–548
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bierschbach RA. 2012. Proportionality and parole. Univ. Pa. Law Rev. 160:1745–88
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Blakely v. Washington 542 U.S. 296 2004.)
  11. Board of Pardons v. Allen 482 U.S. 369 1987.)
  12. Caldwell B. 2016. Creating meaningful opportunities for release: Graham, Miller and California's youth offender parole hearings. N.Y.U. Rev. Law Soc. Change 40:245–304
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Caplan JM. 2006. Parole system anomie: conflicting models of casework and surveillance. Fed. Probat. 70:32–36
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Caplan JM. 2007. What factors affect parole: a review of empirical research. Fed. Probat. 71:16–19
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Carson EA 2020. Prisoners in 2019 Bull., Bur. Justice Stat., US Dep. Justice Washington, DC: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p19.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Chanenson SL. 2005. Guidance from above and beyond. Stanford Law Rev 58:175–94
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Cohen L. 2014. Freedom's road: youth, parole, and the promise of Miller v. Alabama and Graham v. Florida. Cardozo Law Rev 35:1031–90
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Connor DP. 2016. How to get out of prison: views from parole board members. Corrections 1:107–26
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Dressel J, Farid H. 2018. The accuracy, fairness, and limits of predicting recidivism. Sci. Adv. 4:eaao5580
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Flores AW, Bechtel K, Lowenkamp CT. 2016. False positives, false negatives, and false analyses: a rejoinder to “Machine bias: There's software used across the country to predict future criminals. And it's biased against Blacks. .” Fed. Probat. 80:38–46
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Garber RM, Maslach C. 1977. The parole hearing: Decision or justification?. Law Hum. Behav. 1:261–81
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Gardner v. Florida 430 U.S. 349 1977.)
  23. Genego WJ, Goldberger PD, Jackson VC. 1975. Parole release decisionmaking and the sentencing process. Yale Law J 84:810–902
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Gobeil R, Serin RC. 2009. Preliminary evidence of adaptive decision making techniques used by parole board members. . Int. J. Forensic Ment. Health 8:97–104
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Graham v. Florida 560 U.S. 48 2010.)
  26. Graham S, Lowery BS. 2004. Priming unconscious racial stereotypes about adolescent offenders. Law Hum. Behav. 28:483–504
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex 442 U.S. 1 1979.)
  28. Grisso T, Kavanaugh A. 2016. Prospects for developmental evidence in juvenile sentencing based on Miller v. Alabama. Psychol. Public Policy Law 22:235–49
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Hakeem M. 1961. Prediction of parole outcome from summaries of case histories. J. Crim. Law Criminol. Police Sci. 52:145–55
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Harrington A. 2021. The constitutionalization of parole: fulfilling the promise of meaningful review. Cornell Law Rev 106: In press
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Hritz AC. 2020. Board to death: de facto juvenile life without parole. Am. J. Crim. Law 47:47–83
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Huebner BM, Bynum TS. 2008. The role of race and ethnicity in parole decisions. Criminology 46:907–38
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Jones v. Mississippi 141 S.Ct. 1307 2021.)
  34. Kelsey v. S.C. D.P.P.P.S. No. 19-ALJ-15-0061-AP (S.C. Admin. Law Ct. Nov. 3 2020.)
  35. LaHaie CB. 2016. A model for juvenile parole reform. Calif. Legal Hist. 11:475–506
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Mechoulan S, Sahuguet N. 2015. Assessing racial disparities in parole release. J. Legal Stud. 44:39–74
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Medwed DS. 2008. The innocent prisoner's dilemma: consequences of failing to admit guilt at parole hearings. Iowa Law Rev 93:491–558
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Miller v. Alabama 567 U.S. 460 2012.)
  39. Montgomery v. Louisiana 136 S. Ct. 718 2016.)
  40. O'Neil C. 2016. Weapons of Math Destruction New York: Crown
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Palacios VJ. 1994. Go and sin no more: rationality and release decisions by parole boards. S.C. Law Rev. 45:567–616
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Payne v. State 355 S.C. 642, 646 2003.)
  43. Pew Cent. States 2012. Time served: the high cost, low return of longer prison terms Rep., Pew Cent. States Philadelphia:
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Ring v. Arizona 536 U.S. 584 2002.)
  45. Roper v. Simmons 543 U.S. 551 2005.)
  46. Ruhland EL, Rhine EE, Robey JP, Mitchell KL. 2017. The Continuing Leverage of Releasing Authorities: Findings from a National Survey Minneapolis: Robina Inst. Crim. Law Crim. Justice
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Russell SF. 2015. Jury sentencing and juveniles: Eighth Amendment limits and Sixth Amendment rights. Boston College Law Rev 56:553–616
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Russell SF. 2016. The role of the crime at juvenile parole hearings: a response to Beth Caldwell's Creating Meaningful Opportunities for Release. Harbinger 41:227–32
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Sandin v. Conner 515 U.S. 472 1995.)
  50. Sentencing Proj 2020. Trends in U.S. corrections Fact Sheet, Sentencing Proj Washington, DC: https://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Trends-in-US-Corrections.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Solem v. Helm 463 U.S. 277 1983.)
  52. Sood AM. 2013. Motivated cognition in legal judgments: an analytic review. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 9:307–25
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Starr SB. 2014. Evidence-based sentencing and the scientific rationalization of discrimination. Stanford Law Rev 66:803–72
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Stevenson MT, Slobogin C. 2018. Algorithmic risk assessments and the double-edged sword of youth. Behav. Sci. Law 36:638–56
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Thomas KA, Reingold PD. 2017. From grace to grids: rethinking due process protections for parole. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 107:213–51
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Tonry M. 2014. Remodeling American sentencing: a ten-step blueprint for moving past mass incarceration. Crime Justice 44:99–164
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Tonry M. 2015. Federal sentencing “reform” since 1984: the awful as enemy of the good. Criminol. Public Policy 13:503–33
    [Google Scholar]
  58. United States v. Booker 543 U.S. 220 2005.)
  59. Vidmar N, Hans VP. 2007. American Juries: The Verdict New York: Prometheus Books
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Vilcica ER. 2018. Revisiting parole decision making: testing for the punitive hypothesis in a large U.S. jurisdiction. Int. J. Offender Ther. Comp. Criminol. 62:1357–83
    [Google Scholar]
  61. West-Smith M, Pogrebin MR, Poole ED. 2000. Denial of parole: an inmate perspective. Fed. Probat. 64:3–10
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Wilkinson v. Austin 545 U.S. 209 2005.)
  63. Young K, Pearlman J. 2021. Racial disparities in lifer parole outcomes: the hidden role of professional evaluations. Law Soc. Inq In press
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-051121-070621
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error