Re: Question about parole in the US

On 2024-12-11 11:37 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On 2024-12-11 9:46 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

 

I just finished watching an HBO documentary called Nature of the Crime
and it had a rather surprising/puzzling factoid at the end. The film is
about parole and the process that a parole board goes through to decide
if someone who is eligible for parole should be released.

 

The factoid that puzzles me is this: "34 states have parole systems,
each with their own procedures". The thing I don't understand is what
happens in the other 16 states? (I'm not even going to get into DC,
Puerto Rico, Guam, and all of those places.) Do the other 16 states not
allow parole at all?? Or do they have some other process to decide if
someone has served enough time to be considered for release?

 

I'm having trouble believing that a state would have no process for
letting someone deemed no longer a major risk to society being released.
I don't know your Constitution well enough to cite a section that
guarantees all state (and federal) prisoners some kind of parole (or
parole-like) process for prisoners deemed deserving.

 

My state abolished parole in 1978.

 

Judges stopped giving indetermiinate sentences, but there's a different
procedure for good behavior and reduction of time in prison.

 

Ah, the world makes sense again! It just seemed unreasonable that a
state could have no way at all to recognize a prisoner that had "learned
his lesson" whatever that might mean.

 At the time, parole boards had a terrible reputation and were being
blamed for letting prisoners out early who had committed violent crimes,
second guessing the trial court judges. But those indefinite sentences
were a problem of unequal administration of justice.

I remember many such claims about soft-hearted parole boards in various jurisdictions so I'm not surprised that public pressure led to the end of parole boards in some of them. I don't envy the parole boards that job. The parole candidates in the documentary all seemed relatively safe to let out but I expect the filmmaker could have cherry-picked the three individuals featured in the film and minimized the horror these men had perpetrated to make them seem less dangerous. Each of them knew they were on camera and had had 30+ years to learn to act chastened.
So, what does Illinois do in its system since parole got abolished?
We still have parole boards here. Paul Bernardo, arguably the most notorious murder/sex-offender in this country, was recently up for parole but got turned down to great relief. A whole lot of people think he should NEVER be paroled and would happily execute him themselves given the opportunity.
As I understand it, most prisoners are routinely released 1/3 of the way through their sentence, if they've been relatively well-behaved. Virtually everyone is out at the 2/3 mark regardless of behaviour. It's quite rare for anyone to serve their whole sentence. There IS a provision for prisoners to be kept longer than their sentence if a "Dangerous Offender" designation is obtained but that's not easy to get and even those people are entitled to the occasional parole hearing, which is why Bernardo got his hearing a couple of weeks back.
Sentences are relatively light by US standards. They get 25 years before parole eligibility for first degree murder. Multiple murderers serve their sentences concurrently. The Harper government, which was in power when some notorious multiple murders took place, changed the law to make it possible for multiple murderers to be sentenced to consecutive 25 year terms but the courts soon overturned that to make them concurrent again.
--
Rhino