On paper, the idea of a Parole Board or Commission makes sense.
They are meant to be an independent arbiter that looks at risk assessments, institutional behavior, and completed rehabilitative programs in order to evaluate a person’s likelihood of re-offending upon release. They were created to provide a personalized approach to indeterminate sentencing, which was developed with the intent to improve the chances that a person would “rehabilitate” while incarcerated.
Sounds good, right? An individualized and progress-oriented system. Nobody can argue that it should be one of the most humane aspects of the criminal justice system, which is ripe with injustice and dehumanizing components.
The reality, in many situations, is far from perfect. More often are parole commissions filled with political cronies with no experience in justice, none of whom have ever stepped foot inside a prison.
And the parole denials have piled up.
Parole Boards and The Art of Self-Preservation
Residents of carceral facilities in the states that still have parole boards spend years, sometimes decades, balancing the daily demands of self-preservation and the long-term hope that they will someday have a chance at parole.
They live within rigid, sometimes nonsensical, rules that keep them from having too many colored pencils or making physical contact with anyone, including brief hugs. Many live within a culture of race-based gang politics which dictate playing the game or facing violent retribution. Most aren’t allowed to take rehabilitative programs until well into their sentence, having instead to bide their time through the mundane day to day.
The Ins-and-Outs of Parole Hearings
Parole hearings are usually long and drawn out sessions that include the potential parolee giving detailed descriptions of the crime, with thought processes before and during, before the commissioners ask several probing questions about anything from police reports to impact statements to institutional behavior.
It is, for all intents and purposes, a re-litigation of the conviction then a thorough strip down of everything that has happened since.
The hearings can be an hour or a full day, then ends with a judgement that was most likely predetermined before any of the theatrics. You heard that right, the parole commissioners have almost always made up their minds and determined the results prior to the hearing even starting. The hearing itself is for show.
…the parole commissioners have almost always made up their minds and determined the results prior to the hearing even starting.
The hearing itself is for show.
The Media and High Profile Cases
Oftentimes when a high-profile case comes up for parole, the media will cover the process. The Menendez brothers did not have a chance at parole when they entered prison as young adults. Decades later, things changed and they were given a shot.
They were both denied after lengthy hearings.
Most of these high-profile cases result in a denial on the first (few) parole opportunities. Reasons range from poor institutional conduct, even if that conduct was years prior, to lack of accountability or remorse (they didn’t cry at the hearing some 30 years after the original event) to the blanket “risk to society” that requires no validation or evidentiary support.
The reality is that the decision is generally more political or emotional – the commissioners don’t like the crime and don’t want backlash for letting out a notorious person convicted of said crime.
Parole hearings stir up a lot of emotions for all those involved – the victims, the parolee, their families, even the attorneys and judge in the original case. They can be re-traumatizing, especially for people trying to move on from the past. Nevertheless, sometimes a person can see the parole board three, four, five times before being “gifted” the chance to reenter greater society.
A Real Case Study
A man I know was just denied parole for the fourth time. At his first hearing, after 10 years of incarceration, he was told to come back in another 10 years. To be fair, he was not a model individual and he will admit that he didn’t deserve release that first time. His second hearing ended with another 5 years to wait, though his behavior had certainly shifted. The third hearing gave him another 5 years. He then petitioned for a sooner hearing, which was granted so that the hearing occurred 3 years after his last.
Yet, despite the granting of an earlier hearing which gave him hope and predicted a positive result, he was once again denied. “Come back in another year,” they said. The man is now in his 60s and has already lost both his best friends to “parole by death” – something becoming more and more common as the prison population ages.
Every state has an infirmary unit or specific prison for the sick and elderly. Some states have multiple locations. Prisons that were once full of violence and drugs are now filled with walkers and chemotherapy. When a person gets into hospice care, how in the world can we still deem them a danger to society? How inhumane does a parole commission have to be to deny parole to a frail or dying elderly person? Sure, they hurt someone decades ago. But that person does not exist anymore. No one is the same as they were at 20 when they hit 60. No one.
The parole process needs to be re-imagined to be more humanizing and forgiving. It started out as a way to allow a person to slowly re-enter society and prove themselves. They received a “ticket of leave” that provided a conditional freedom based on good behavior.
It gave people a chance to show they could reintegrate.
Modern parole commissions need to give more people a chance, especially for those whose crimes occurred in the twentieth century.
🖤 Love what we do? Support Clutch.
