Abstract
In today's era of judicial decision-making guidelines and determinate sentencing systems, the future prospects for parole at the federal and state levels are increasingly unclear. The Supreme Court, in Greenholtz v. North Carolina (1979) and Board of Pardons v. Allen (1987) has offered a view of parole decision-making that emphasizes board members' projections concerning the societal risk posed by any given parolee. However, numerous empirical research studies have documented the importance of offense severity evaluations and other retributive judgements that are often negatively correlated with risk assessment. This article presents a way to integrate various conceptions of parole according to the broader sentencing framework within which board members operate. Implications for due process requirements at parole hearings and guidelines reform efforts are also discussed.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
