Affording a meaningful opportunity of release

Abstract

Until 2012, juveniles were eligible for a mandatory sentence of life without parole (LWOP). Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. Alabama (2012), states began to provide their juvenile LWOP populations a "meaningful opportunity to obtain release"-one that takes into account mitigated culpability and potential for rehabilitation. As a result, states diverged on whether to provide resentencing or parole board hearings. While the right to counsel is guaranteed in a resentencing hearing which resembles the sentencing phase of a criminal trial, not all state parole boards provide the right to counsel. Some states, like Massachusetts as examined in this study, have qualified that the right to counsel is available to all juvenile lifers at their initial parole hearing, including for those who received parole-eligible life sentences. Still, legal representation in the parole process has received little scholarly attention. This dissertation study examines how legal representation facilitates a juvenile lifer's meaningful review. Findings from multivariate regression analyses showed that the presence of counsel is associated with reduced odds of release, but this effect was related to the time period in which the hearing took place and the type of attorney appointed. Discourse analysis of attorney interviews revealed that release on parole is only one dimension of evaluating attorney effectiveness. Attorneys enable a meaningful review by enhancing a juvenile lifer candidate's presentation of self through thorough preparation. To that end, this study highlights the importance of the right to counsel as a due process protection for juvenile lifer parole candidates. An implication of this study is that discretionary release practices of parole boards similarly impact other incarcerated populations. Therefore, all candidates require the assistance of counsel in credibly presenting their narratives of suitability for parole.--Author's abstract