Interesting article. I never realized there were scenarios where parole had been abolished entirely.
I believe that parole no longer exists for Federal offenses, as well.
I’m puzzled. People have to serve at least 85% of their sentence, which implies that it’s possible to get out after serving 85% of one’s sentence. If you are serving less than 100% of your sentence, isn’t that being paroled?
Not necessarily. In my state, a person can be released after serving 1/3 of an indeterminate sentence at the Parole Board’s discretion. That is “parole”. If a person with an indeterminate sentence is not paroled, he/she will be “conditionally released” after serving 2/3 of the sentence, after any adjustments are made for the loss of “good time” due to misbehavior while in prison. Some violent felons were sentenced to determinate sentences, and are conditionally released after serving 85% of their sentences (again, with adjustments for loss of good time). Other violent felons are released after serving 85% of a determinate sentence, and also have a period of post- release supervision. The paroled inmates spend the remaining 2/3 of their sentences being supervised by parole officers. Those conditionally released from indeterminate sentence spend the remaining 1/3 supervised by parole officers. Those conditionally released after 85% spend the last 15% supervised by parole officers, and those subject to post-release supervision spend the last 15% of the sentence plus the period of post-release supervision being supervised by parole offficers. Only those released at the discretion of the parole board have been paroled, so the politicians are technically being truthful when they claim to have “eliminated parole for violent felons”. But I don’t think the average person knows about the various forms of early release, and understands the elimination of parole to be the elimination of all early release.
What she said… I be cornfused…
Do they just kick them out and say they are done? Just shortening the time and not calling it parole, but release due to time served? Semantics?
You miss the point. In your state it’s 33% In Virginia, it’s 85%. It’s still parole, right? They just use a different cut-off point.
I guess I wasn’t clear enough . In my state, only those who are released at the discretion of the parole board are paroled. Those who are released by operation of law are conditionally released. They are automatically released after serving the maximum portion of their sentence minus their “good time”. No parole board can deny their release - there is no discretion involved. It is a distinction made on the basis of the mechanism of release. It basically is semantics, as parolees and conditional releasees are still subject to supervision and must abide by the same conditions. There are a few situations, such as violations, when parolees and conditional releasees are treated diferently, but for the most part, the only difference is the the mechanism of release.But the distinction allows politicians to say that there is no parole for violent felons-they aren’t paroled, they are conditionally released.
Let’s rework the thinking here, to help clarify terminology:
There are indeterminate sentences and determinate sentences. And there are parole and “good behavior” release.
Contrary to the apparent meaning of the term, an indeterminate sentence is the standard “five to ten” or “twenty-five to lfie” of long term sentences – where a minimum and maximum are stated at sentencing. When a person receives an indeterminate sentence, he must serve a period of incarceration which is at least the minumum sentence handed down, and may extend from that up to the maximum, less any “good behavior” allowance provided for in the statutes.
The decision on how much longer than his minimum sentence a felon must serve is up to the discretion of a parole board, who considers his individual case in terms of whether he has been rehabilitated and whether he remains a menace to society. If they find that there is a reasonable gamble that he can live as a law-abiding member of society, they will order him released on parole, under which he must live according to certain guidelines and have regular contact with a parole officer assigned to him.
A determinate sentence is one in which a person is sentenced to, e.g., six months in jail or three years of prison. Period. Except for the mitigation of “good behavior” release, he is to serve the specified period, with no opportunity for parole.
“Good behavior” time is a small fraction of the complete sentence, ranging from one-third in the most liberal jurisdictions to 10-15% in the most severe. What it says is that upon serving the majority of one’s sentence without having violated rules set down by the Corrections Department or prison on proper behavior while in prison, one is entitled to be released from incarceration. It serves as a “carrot” to ensure elicit conformance with those rules, since typically prisoners have only that much control over their release, and will not choose to serve an extra few years in order to raise hell in prison – something they can look forward to and will put extra effort into trying to preserve.
In some states, there is an absolute release at the point when “good behavior” time kicks in; in others, the person released early on good behavior is subject to reporting for parole.
The Federal system and each state have their own sentencing guidelines, including when determinate and indeterminate sentences are appropriate, what is the appropriate minimum for a given indeterminate-sentence maximum, etc.
Wisconsin now has “Truth in Sentencing”. Judge says “7 years in prison, 15 on community supervision”. That’s what is served. No function for the parole board at all. To get the sentence changed, one must go back to the original sentencing judge and and prosecuting DA and get them both to agree to change the sentence. Which doesn’t happen.
Interestingly, Wisconsin’s crime rate was already falling when “Truth in Sentencing” was implemented, and since said implementation, the rate is not falling as fast as it was before. I’m not sure what that means.
And the public is now somewhat irked to be told that the abolition of parole will cost an extra $1.8 billion over the next 20 years.
Here’s an interesting article on one state’s experience with the abolition of parole: Truth in sentencing
What has become of the concept of a parole being a set of restrictive rules that a newly released felon must follow, and the parole officer who he must periodically check in with?
I got the impression that what VA eliminated was the after-sentence monitoring of released prisoners. I unserstood it to be a change from s system of being sentenced to ten years, serving five and being free on supervised parole for the remainder of the sentence on the one hand; to simply serving your full sentence (or 85% or whatever) and them being out with almost no strings attached. Of course, there were usually some strings attached like being unable to vote or buy guns, but there was no place they’d have to check in anymore.
Of course, this is what I understood from the debate as played out in the media durring Allen’s campaign in the early 90’s. I moved away from the area in '92, so I don’t know what the reality turned out to be.