Possibility Of Parole Research Articles

Examining Parole Decision-Making Pre- and Post-COVID-19: Does Elderly Status Matter?

Due to the growing concerns of mass incarceration, coupled with the recent global pandemic of COVID-19, parole is in the spotlight as an avenue for early release. At the start of COVID-19, the elderly incarcerated population received attention due to their vulnerabilities. In this article, the likelihood of parole release and the amount of time candidates must wait postdenial are examined by accounting for the COVID-19 period and a parole candidate’s elderly status. Data come from a U.S. state parole board’s written decisions issued between 2017 and 2022 for individuals sentenced to life with the possibility of parole. While logistic regression models showed COVID-19 and elderly status did not influence the likelihood of release, ordinary least squares (OLS) models found that having a hearing after the onset of the pandemic was significantly associated with shorter interval term lengths. The article concludes with implications for replicating similar studies to understand discretionary release outcomes.

Prosecutorial Language, Moral Disengagement, and Sentencing Outcomes in Real Capital Murder Cases

AbstractLanguage reflecting moral disengagement has been shown to influence juries in mock juror studies; however, little to no research has examined this in actual murder cases. Prosecutors play an influential role in capital murder cases during both the guilt phase and sentencing phase of the trial. If a defendant is found guilty, jurors must then decide the appropriate sentence, which can be difficult when the penalties include death versus life without parole. Self-report and mock trial studies suggest that jurors may engage in moral disengagement methods (e.g., moral justification, dehumanizing language) that allow them to distance themselves from the decision. Capital murder trial transcripts were analyzed to investigate the influence of moral disengagement variables on sentencing (“death” versus “life without the possibility of parole”). Results indicate that arguments for future dangerousness were positively correlated with death penalty verdicts, although other types of moral disengagement language strategies were not. An additional linguistic strategy was included, which investigated language that might garner empathy for the victim. This was also positively correlated with a death penalty verdict. This analysis of capital murder trial transcripts reveals differences in influential moral displacement strategies than mock juror studies suggest.

Police recruits' attitudes toward the death penalty in Trinidad and Tobago

Knowledge, attitudes and beliefs of police officers are important in shaping public opinion on the death penalty. However, there is a paucity of research in the Caribbean on police officers’ attitudes towards the death penalty and thus insufficient police scholarship on this topical issue. More specifically, there is a noticeable sparseness of scholarship on the death penalty using police recruits as proxies for such studies. As a result of this lacuna, the current study examined attitudes of police recruits towards the death penalty using a mixed-method approach to gather data on attitudes towards the death penalty as well as alternatives to the death penalty. Questionnaires were distributed to one hundred and seven individuals undergoing police recruit training at the Police Academy in Trinidad and Tobago. The data were distilled by gender, education level, marital status, and age range to determine attitudes towards the death penalty among the recruit population. The findings revealed: (1) high levels of support for the death penalty, (2) the death penalty is the most appropriate sentence for persons found guilty of murder, and (3) life imprisonment without the possibility of parole as the best alternative sentencing option to the death penalty. Three themes (consistent application of the death penalty, life imprisonment without parole, and murder only) emanated from the qualitative component of the instrument and these are discussed.

Life or death: A qualitative examination of mitigating and aggravating evidence presented in capital trials.

The US Supreme Court has required that death penalty procedures narrow the class of persons eligible for a death sentence. Through the selection requirement, juries must use mitigating and aggravating evidence jointly to determine if a defendant is one of the worst of the worst, resulting in a sentence of life without parole or death. This study analyzed capital trial transcripts from the punishment phase to assess the type and amount of mitigating and aggravating evidence presented to jurors in cases resulting in life without parole and death. The main assumption of the research was that cases resulting in life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) would reveal patterns in the types of evidence presented and differing patterns in cases where the jury handed down a sentence of death. The study qualitatively examined the trial transcripts from the punishment phase of 18 capital murders (nine resulting in LWOP and nine in death). The extra-legal factors from each LWOP case were matched to a death case to eliminate sentencing discrepancies based on jurisdiction, race of defendant or victim, aggravator, age etc. The results found no consistent patterns of evidence presented in cases resulting life without parole and some relevant patterns in sentences resulting in death.

Briefly Noted

McCallum v. Italy involved the extradition of a U.S. national accused of murdering her husband and the burning of his corpse in Michigan. According to a press release from the Court, At the time she filed her case, she was being detained in Rome, but at the time of the judgment, she was in detention in the U.S. In denying her request to stay her extradition, the Italian authorities referred to the U.S. appeals process, the possibility of a pardon or a commutation of her sentence by the Michigan governor as reasons counseling in favor of extradition. They also felt that there were no reasons to believe that she would be subject to inhuman or degrading treatment there. Several months later, the U.S. authorities sent a diplomatic note to Italy indicating that McCallum would be tried for the lesser offense of second degree murder, which would carry with it the possibility of parole. A new extradition order was issued by Italy, but the Court ordered that it be stayed pending these proceedings. In ultimately holding that the extradition would not violate Article 3, the Court pointed out the importance of Michigan's diplomatic note, indicating that a lesser charge would be imposed. Citing prior case law, the Court noted that “Diplomatic Notes carry a presumption of good faith and that, in extradition cases, it was appropriate that that presumption be applied to a requesting State which has a long history of respect for democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and which has longstanding extradition arrangements with Contracting States” (¶ 51, citing Harkins & Edwards v. UK, nos. 9146/07 and 32650/07).

The Scars We Bear

Should gene therapy give criminals a chance for early release? In this work of philosophical fiction, Callum beats his wife Joellen and puts her face to a burning stovetop. As each screams, a police officer opens the front door. Callum shoot and kills the officer. He is sentenced to the harshest punishment, life in prison without the possibility of parole. Nineteen years later Joellen, and the officer’s widow, get notified that Callum has undergone gene therapy to remove his aggressive nature and, under a new state policy, is consequentially, eligible for parole. Joellen supports the parole, but the officer’s wife does not. In the end, Callum is paroled, and Joellen exacts her revenge.

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Life Without Parole as an Alternative to the Death Penalty

Death penalty in the United States has been steadily replaced by life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) sentences since 2001. As of July 2021, the number of people on death row imprisoned in state, federal, or military prisons was down to a thirty-year low, which translated to a 33% decrease since its peak in July 2001. On the other hand, the number of people serving LWOP increased by 66% since 2003. This paper reviews current academic literature to compare the pros and cons of LWOP and death penalty from financial and psychological points of view in response to the question of whether LWOP is a more effective alternative to the death penalty in the United States. From a total cost perspective, LWOP is less costly to execute than that of a death sentence. Psychologically speaking, LWOP may be more satisfactory for both families of the victims and defendants. However, while LWOP has been regarded by many as more humane, its effectiveness has been degraded by harsh policies in the 1980s and 1990, which have resulted in prison overcrowding and the United States having the highest prison incarnation rate in the world. In addition, diminishing rights is a common issue experienced by LWOP prisoners. Therefore, the author concludes that while LWOP has strengths over the death penalty, its ultimate effectiveness remains in question.

Women Lifers: What the United States Sentencing Commission Data Tell Us about Women Eligible for and Sentenced to Life Without Parole

ABSTRACT The current study builds on recent research assessing the decision to impose life imprisonment without the possibility of parole (LWOP), focusing on females convicted in US District Courts. Using USSC data from 2010 to 2017 and an intersectional approach, we described the characteristics of life-eligible and life-sentenced women and examined the factors that predict life eligibility among females and males . Black women faced higher odds of life eligibility than White or Hispanic women and life experiences and case processing factors affected life eligibility differently for women and men. These results highlight the importance of intersectionality for understanding gendered sentencing pathways.

The State of Florida v. Kelvin Lee Coleman Jr.: the implications of neuroscience in the courtroom through a case study

ABSTRACT Neuroscience can provide evidence in some cases of legal matters, despite its tenuous nature. Among others, arguing for diminished capacity, insanity, or pleading for mitigation is the most frequent use of neurological evidence in the courtroom. While there is a plethora of studies discussing the moral and legal matters of the practice, there is a lack of studies examining specific cases and the subsequent applications of brain knowledge. This study details the capital punishment trial of Kelvin Lee Coleman Jr., charged in 2013 with double murder in Tampa, Florida, to illustrate the extent that expert opinions – based on neuroimaging, neurological, and neuropsychiatric examinations – had an impact on the court’s decisions. The defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. According to the comments of the trial’s jury, the most influential reason for not sentencing the defendant to death is the fact that during the incident was that he was under extreme mental and emotional disturbance. Other reasons were evidence of brain abnormalities resulting from neurological insult, fetal alcohol syndrome, and orbitofrontal syndrome contributing to severely abnormal behavior and lack of impulse control.

Operation Deans: Christchurch mosque shooting

At 1:40 pm on Friday 15 March 2019 a lone gunman entered the Al Noor mosque, shooting and killing 42 people who had gathered for prayers. He then drove to the Linwood Islamic Centre where he killed a further 7 people. He was arrested less than 20 minutes later. He was charged with 51 counts of murder, 39 counts of attempted murder, and one charge of committing a terrorist act. He pled guilty to all charges and was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Now with the possibility of parole: Enabling a juvenile lifer’s meaningful review

Abstract Parole is one of the least visible decision-making processes in the criminal justice system. We consider decision statements that support or reject release as symbolic of organizational concerns beyond the candidate’s individual attributes. To draw out the symbolic, we focus on decision statements issued to 33 juvenile lifers previously ineligible for parole. We find that what is meaningful to a parole board is highly selective, and there is no generalized presumption of mitigated culpability and capacity for rehabilitation. Rather release is justified based on childhood abuse, peer dependency and a redemptive self. In contrast, denying narratives selectively highlight the seriousness of the sentencing offence by focusing on the ‘horrific,’ and the retributive requirement for more time to be served.

Assessing California’s Response to the Supreme Court’s Rejection of Life in Prison without Parole for Juvenile Offenders

ABSTRACT In the last decade and a half, the Supreme Court has decided a number of cases affecting juvenile sentencing and curtailing serious punishments for juveniles. These cases culminated in the Court declaring unconstitutional the sentencing of juvenile offenders to life without the possibility of parole. For those juveniles previously sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, these decisions mandated that states provide these offenders with meaningful opportunities for release. This paper assesses the implementation of the state of California’s legislative response to the Court’s rulings. Specifically, we examine the extent to which youthful offender parole boards in California consider the developmental factors noted by the Supreme Court in their decisions. Our results show that the aspects of the criminal offense and the “hallmark features of youth” were found not to influence parole decisions. In contrast, several aspects of the prisoner’s growth and maturation in prison were related to parole release. Thus, it appears that the parole boards are operating as instructed by the Supreme Court. Implications of these findings are discussed.

Children Tried as Adults Without Possibility of Parole

Children Tried as Adults Without Possibility of Parole

Life imprisonment in Serbia: Current legislation, theoretical issues, and international legal standards

The subject of this paper is the analysis of the novelties regarding life imprisonment in the Criminal Code of Serbia that have been in force since December 1, 2019. The accent falls on the criminal law dimension of these amendments, especially based on the basic principles and their influence on the whole system according to the other provisions of positive law in Serbia. We give the reasons pro and contra life imprisonment as such and the proposal of its special forms and legal solutions (e. g. life without possibility of parole). Moreover, our review touches upon some legal and philosophical aspects that potentially occur in the adoption and implementation phase, both in the national and international law.

Life lessons: Examining sources of racial and ethnic disparity in federal life without parole sentences*

AbstractAlongside capital punishment, sentences to life without the possibility of parole are one of the most distinctive aspects of the American system of criminal punishment. Unlike the death penalty, though, almost no empirical work has examined the decision to impose life imprisonment. The current study analyzes several years of recent federal sentencing data (FY2010–FY2017) to investigate underlying sources of racial disparity in life without parole sentences. The analysis reveals disparities in who receives life imprisonment, but it finds these differences are attributable mostly to indirect mechanisms built into the federal sentencing system, such as the mode of conviction, mandatory minimums, and guidelines departures. Both Black and Hispanic offenders are more likely to be eligible for life sentences under the federal guidelines, but conditional on being eligible, they are not more likely to receive life sentences. Findings are discussed in relation to ongoing debates over racial inequality and the growing role that life imprisonment plays in American exceptionalism in punishment.

Life “With” Or “Without”? An Empirical Study of Homicide Sentencing

The number of Americans serving sentences of life without the possibility of parole (“LWOP”) has grown rapidly over the past generation and now exceeds 50,000. Yet, little empirical research has been conducted on the determinants of LWOP sentences. The dearth of research on LWOP sentencing stands in sharp contrast to the many dozens of studies that have been conducted on the determinants of death sentences–studies that have consistently found that race, gender, and other questionable factors may influence sentencing outcomes. The present study is the first to employ a similar methodology to identify both case‐ and county‐level variables that are correlated with the imposition of discretionary LWOP sentences.More specifically, we have assessed the relationship between fifty different variables and LWOP decisions in 450 homicide cases in Wisconsin between 2001 and 2018. In our final model, we find seven variables that are correlated with sentencing outcomes. Of particular note, we find that judge and prosecutor personal characteristics are statistically significant correlates of LWOP decisions. We also find a significantly greater likelihood that LWOP sentences will be imposed in counties that are more Republican. We conclude with a proposal for a new LWOP sentencing process that may help to ensure that this very severe sentence is reserved for the most serious crimes committed by the most dangerous defendants.

Long Road to Nowhere: How Southern States Struggle with Long-Term Incarceration

The Deep South is the epicenter of mass incarceration. The United States incarcerates more people per capita than any other country, with prison populations growing by 86% between 1990 and 2019. For Southern states, prison populations exploded by 127% during that same period. During this time in history, America implemented “tough on crime” policies that responded to public health issues like the drug epidemic with incarceration instead of rehabilitation. Laws for even nonviolent crimes became more punitive with longer sentences, and people of color were disproportionately pushed into prisons with little hope for parole. Today, incarceration rates for Latinx and Black people are more than two and five times the incarceration rate of whites, respectively. The commitment to the “tough on crime” narrative led to significantly overcrowded prisons, which not only put a strain on state budgets, but also created human rights challenges regarding how to maintain a safe and healthy prison environment. Three Southern states in particular — Alabama, Florida, and Louisiana — exemplify how prison populations have grown to be problematic in three unique ways. Alabama is home to the most overcrowded prisons in the country, currently at 151% of capacity. Even after sentencing reforms were passed in 2017, recent legislation concerning the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles has severely diminished the parole chances of currently incarcerated people. Florida, with over 95,000 imprisoned people, has the third-largest prison population of any state in the country, and still adheres to a “Truth in Sentencing” rule requiring incarcerated people to serve at least 85% of their sentences, regardless of any demonstration of rehabilitation. As a result, Florida has grown to have the oldest prison population in the South, a group whose care is increasingly expensive. Louisiana has been known as the “incarceration capital of the world” for consistently having incredibly high incarceration rates. A large factor is the number of people serving life sentences without the possibility of parole, including juveniles. The lack of early prison release is just one of many contributors to mass incarceration in the South. The solutions also vary — from expanding parole eligibility and making it retroactive, to increasing incentives for rehabilitation credits, to re-calibrating triggers for life without parole sentences. This report will investigate the impact that over-incarceration has had in three Southern states, and provide recommendations on how each state can address the issue through policy change.

Un/Covering White Lies: Exposing Racism in the Era of Racelessness

This project examines a Canadian court case that involves the largest arson homicide in the history of Vancouver, British Columbia. In May 2006 a fire killed four members of a Congolese refugee family (Adela Etibako and three of her children, Benedicta, Edita, and Stephane) along with Ashley Singh, the South Asian girlfriend of the target and sole survivor of the fire, Bolingo Etibako. On October 5, 2008 the accused, Nathan Fry, a 20-year-old white male, was found guilty of five counts of first-degree murder and one count of attempted murder. Fry received an automatic life sentence without the possibility of parole for 25 years. This paper considers this crime and the legal proceedings as a case study that can further our understanding of discourses of race, racism, and citizenship in Canada, and their link to Mbembe’s (2003) notion of necropolitics, what he terms as the politics of life and death. I argue that the viciousness of the crime, an offense involving a white male perpetrator and victims all of whom are racialized as Black and Brown, reflects the embodied practices and psychological processes that are both emblematic of, and integral to, the violence of coloniality, and the racial relations and structural arrangements of present-day white settler society (Martinot, 2010; Razack, 2002, 2005). I show how the crime, the investigation, and the trial communicate symbolically and materially what bell hooks (1992) characterizes as the “terrorizing force of white supremacy” (p. 344).

“The State was Patiently Waiting for Me to Die”: Life without the Possibility of Parole as Punishment

Despite its growing use over past decades, there has been relatively little public or scholarly discussion of life sentences that deny the possibility of parole. This essay outlines the labyrinthine legal and political developments that have rendered life imprisonment difficult to address—including the intertwined histories of the death penalty and civil death—and draws upon the life writing of those serving life to theorize a more distinct understanding of this punishment. Witnesses reveal how the possibility of life despite the impossibility of parole punishes by subverting the goals of human growth and development. The potentiality of what can be done in the present grinds up against the futility of what could have been done and what could be done were release an option. Considered alongside the laws and court opinions and claims that characterize its convoluted development, these testimonies reveal this punishment’s role in the American imagination. Life without the possibility of parole reinforces and relies upon a vision that not simply some people are unable to change, but that anyone in a democracy—no matter their position—is some steps away from irretrievable exclusion. Permanent confinement denies a restorative vision of democracy: any effort to abolish or amend it must include the voices of those imprisoned.

Irreducible Life Sentences, Craig Minogue and the Capacity of Human Rights Charters to Make a Difference

Certain commentators have recently doubted whether, as a normative matter, an irreducible life sentence will always breach an offender’s human rights. This article argues that it will. Such commentators ignore the fact that certain punishments are ‘inhuman or degrading’ however proportionate they are, and however much suffering they cause. After noting that there is a clear trend against irreducible life sentences in Europe, the article then contends that a comparison of the relevant European jurisprudence with some recent decisions of the High Court of Australia demonstrates that charters of rights can improve protections for prisoners against laws that objectify and exclude them. The Victorian government’s recent disapplication of its charter for the purposes of legislation that removes the possibility of parole from certain named prisoners, however, also indicates that, if future Australian charters are properly to protect prisoners’ rights, they might have to be designed differently from existing Australian charters.