FEDERAL PAROLE GUIDELINES: THREE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE

[Pages:22]If you have issues viewing or accessing this file, please contact us at .

I

~31/3

I

I FEDERAL PAROLE GUIDELINES:

I THREE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE

I

I

I

by

I

Peter B. Hoffman

I

I

I

. UNITED STATES BOARD OF PAROLE RESEARCH UNIT

RE:?ORT TEN

I

November, 1975

I

I

J

I

I

I

I

I I I' I I I I I I . I

I I I

I

I

I

I I

I

I

I

One of the most troublesome iSbues in the administration of criminal justice involves the exercise of discretionary

I

power. On one hand, the unguided and unfettered exercise of

discretiQn can lead to arbitrary and capricious decision-making,

I

decision inequity, and disparity. Such has been a major criti-

cism of sentencing and parole practices. liOn the other hand,

I

the rigid application of fixed and mechanical rules (e.g. man-

I

d'atory sentences) can lead to results as undesirable and unj ust'?/ In an effort to balance the above considerations and provide

I

more rational 3 consistent, and equitable decision-making without

removing individual case consideration, the United States Board

I

of Parole has promulgated decision-making guidelines which arti-

culate the major elements considered in parole selection and the

I

31

weights customarily given to them. - Briefly, tte guideline con-

cept postulates that by articulating the major decision criteria

I

and the customary decision policy associated with the various COffi-

I

binations of major elements, a decision framework can be created

specific enough to guide and control discretion, yet flexible

I

enough to allow deviation from customary policy when warranted by

the circumstances of a particular case. Developed during the course

I

of a collaborative three year study of decision-making conducted

by the Research Center of the National Council on Crime and Delin-

I

quency under a grant from the Law Enforcement Assistance Adminis-

I

tration~/the Board's decision guidelines consider three maj or

elements: the nature (gravity) of the current offense, parole

I

prognosis, and institutional behavior.

J- 1-

I

'1

I

The Guideline Matrix Table I displays the guidelines for decision-making

I

presently used by the Board o~ Parole for?Adult cases. Sepa-

I

rate guidelines are utilized for Youth and NARA (Narcotic Addict

5/

Rehal>ili tation Act) cases.- On the vertical axis, the gravity

I

(severity) of the applicant's present federal offense behavior

is consid0.red. Six offense severity categories are listed .

I

. For each category, the Board has specified a number of offense behavior examples. For ir.stance, the offense behaviors of embez-

I?

zlement (less than $20,000), theft of ~otor vehicle, and theft/

.~

I

forgery/fraud ($1,000- $19,999) are placed in the moderate se-

verity category. Robbery, extortion, and sale of "hard" drugs

I

are placed in the very high severity category. It is noted that

these are merely examples of typical offense behaviors. Board

I

regulations provide that if a specific offense behavior,is not

listed on the guideline chart, the proper category is to be ob-

I

6/

tained by comparison with those offense behaviors that are listed. Moreover, particularly aggravating or mitigating factors in a spe-

I

cific case may warrant a higher or lower severity rating (or a

I

decision outside the guidelines) provided the reasons for this action

II

are stated.

I

[Insert Table I About Here]

On the horizontal axis, four categories of parole prognosis

I

(likelihood of favorable parole outrome) are listed. As an aid in as~essing an applicant's pa~ole prognos~s, the Board utilizes an

I

actua....'ial device (experience table) termed a "salient factor score".

I

- J

-

~

(

I

I

I

I

This device was developed as part of the Parole Decision-Making project cited above,8j In brief) data Has collected for Ii .random

I

sample of 2) 483 cases released in 1970 by all forms of rel!;a~(:

(parole/mandatory release/expiration of sentence), For research

I

purposes, the sample was divided into construction (n=902) and

validation (n=158L) subsrunples, Two year followup f.rom date of

I

release fur each individual was obtained through the cooperation

01' the I1'eueral EUl'eau of In-lestigation, which provided' !'ap sheet'

I

copies for the required study subjects. A criterion measure

I

of favorable outcome (no new conviction resulting in a sentence

of sixty days or nlore and no return to prison for parole violation

I

within two years of date of release) was established. From the set

of over Sixty background variables collected, rdne items found to

I

be sjgnificantly related to parole outcome on the construction sub-

? ~!-

sample were selected and combined to produce a device scoring from

I

zero to eleven pOints (the higher the :')core) the more favorable the

I

parole prognosis estimate). This device was then tested on the va-

lidatIon subsample ,'i/ Table II displays the nine items forming the

1.0/

I

salient factor score presently in use,-

I

[Insert Table II About Here] Board regulatIons specify that this device is to be u$ed as

11/

I

an actuarial aid.-Thus) "When the circumstances warrant) the Board

representatives hearing a case may use their clinical judgment

I J - 3-

I

I

I

to override the salient factor SCO)'0, provided they specify the basis for their action. In this manner, the Board has en-

I

deavored to combine the advantages of both clinical and actuarial

I

ffiethods in making parole prognosis determinations.

Given the severity rating and parole prognosis estimate, one

I

may refer back to Table I to find the customary or policy range

spec-L.fied for the particular case. For example, the guideline

I

range for an adult offender with a moderate offense severity rat-

ing (e.g., auto theft) and a salient factor score of 9-11 (very

I

good parole prognosis) is 12-16 months. dn the other hand, the

I

guideline range ~or an applicant with a very high severity offense

behavior (e.g., extortion) and a salient factor score of 0-3

I

(poor parole prognosis) is 55-65 months. There are no guideline

ranges noted for offense behaviors listed in the greatest severity

I

category: This is due to the small number of cases encountered and

the extreme variations in severity posBible within ~he category.

I

Thus, for greatest severity cases, decisions must be based upon

I

extrapolation from the time ranges provided in very high severity

cases.

I

The above guidelines presume that the applicant will have

maintained a satisfactory record of institutional conduct and pro12/

I

gram achievement (the third major dimension), Applicants who have

I;

demonstrated exceptionally good institutional program achievement

may be considered for release earlier than the specified guideline range. On the other hand, applicants whose institutional conduct

I

or program achievement is rated as unsatisfactory are likely to be 13/

I

held longer than the range specified.

J - 4-

I

I,

Case Decision-Making

.In actual case decision-making, a guideline evaluation '

wor'ksheet listing the ~~everity rating, salient ;factor score,

and guideline range'is completed at each initial parole selec-

tion hearing. T,he Board representatives hearing tht:: case must

then determine whether a decision within or outside the guide-:

.I~? ~.

:I '. I ~ , "

:1

line range is appropriate. If the Board representatives feel that a decision outside the guideline range (either above or below) is warranted, they may render such a decision provided that their reasons for departure from custom?ry policy are stated. Analysis

of 5,993 initial Board hearings conducted during the first half of 1975 (January - June) indicates that 16.2 percent of decisions

'were outside the guidelines (8.7% below the guidelines and 7.5%

above the guidelines). The remaining decisions (83.8%)

I

,

were considered as within the guidelines. It is to'be noted

I " , "

:'J

I

I

I

I'j ?~'~i

~t':

"

:.1 ..

! .

.1'.

?"1". ?

J.~t",," ,-

l _ _ _ _ __

that the ~bove figures consider only discretionary decisions as outside the guidelines.' Since th~ Board may not parole a case below the judicially set minimum sentence (if any) nor may it hold a prisoner past his maximum sentence (mandatory release date), there are certain cases in which the Board's discretion is limited Py the sentence structure (i.e., a minimum sentence longer than the guideline range, or a maximum sentence shorter than the guideline range). For purposes of this analysis, decisions, controiled by the limits of the sentence were counted as within 'the guidelines~

J -5

..... "

\.

=::w - ?'.AI

~

.... -

-'

,

1 ,

I

I

Among the reasons cited for decisions below the guidelines

were mitigating offense factors, exceptional institutional program

I

achievement, clinical judgment that the applicant was a better parole risk than indicated by the salient factor score, credit for

I

time s)ent in state custody on other (concurrent) charges, and

I

serious medical problems. Reasons given for decisions above the

~uidelines included aggravating offense factors, unsatisfactory

I

institutional conduct, failure to complete institutional programs,

and clinical judgment that an applicant was a poorer parole risk

I

than indicated by the predictive scol'e.\ At an initial parole hearing, an applicant may either be

I

granted parole, denied parole and scheduled for a review hearing

I

during a specific month [subject to Board policy that no prisoner

141

be continued without review for more than three years],-or denied

I

parole and continued to the expiration of his term [prov~ded no

more than three years remain until hif: i.1andatory release date]1.5-1

I

Given guideline usage at initial hearings, it is not surprising that a large majority of review hearings scheduled result in parole

I

t

grants. During the first half of 1975, 3,290 regularly scheduled

I

review considerations were conducted. Approximately eighty-one

percent (81%) resulted in parole, eleven percent (11%) resulted in

I,

further continuances with disciplinary infractions cIted, and eight

percent (8?;) .t"'esulted in further continuances for other I'easons.

I

J - 6-

I

I

I

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download