Parole Release Hearings: The Fallacy of Discretion

5 Thurgood Marshall School of Law Journal on Gender, Race & Justice 1 (2015)

25 Pages Posted: 15 Feb 2015 Last revised: 1 May 2015

Date Written: February 12, 2015

Abstract

Despite nearly every U.S. state having created a parole system, incarcerated offenders do not have a constitutional right to early release on parole, and parole hearings do not automatically invoke due process. The resultant discretion afforded to parole decision-makers, coupled with the administrative regime’s relaxed evidentiary standards, risks erroneous, vindictive, or politically motivated information tainting release decisions. Louisiana, the world’s prison capital, has recently initiated parole reforms that may provide a model for reforms in other states. This article details the evolution of Louisiana’s parole release structures, highlights problems with discretionary parole-release decision-making, and proposes Louisiana pilot reforms that may transfer to other states.

Keywords: parole, criminal law, law, mass incarceration, justice, Louisiana, parole committee, due process, constitutional law, administrative law, prison

Suggested Citation

Alagood, R. Kyle, Parole Release Hearings: The Fallacy of Discretion (February 12, 2015). 5 Thurgood Marshall School of Law Journal on Gender, Race & Justice 1 (2015). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2564373

R. Kyle Alagood (Contact Author)

Gannon University ( email )

109 University Square
Erie, PA 16541
United States

HOME PAGE: http://www.gannon.edu/FacultyProfiles.aspx?profile=alagood001

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
186
Abstract Views
1,449
rank
168,862
PlumX Metrics