Issue 3: The Board of Pardons and Paroles Has Not Adequately Updated and Used Required Parole Guidelines to Help Ensure the Most Consistent, Appropriate Release Decisions.
Summary
Key Recommendations
· Require the Board of Pardons and Paroles to annually report and explain to the Legislature its efforts to meet the parole guidelines.
· Require the Board of Pardons and Paroles to annually review and update the parole guidelines.
· Require parole panel members who depart from the guidelines to provide specific reasons explaining the deviation.
Key Findings
· The Legislature required the Board of Pardons and Paroles to develop parole guidelines to provide objective criteria to help determine whether to grant or deny parole.
· Parole panels continue to deviate from the parole guidelines, despite repeated documentation of noncompliance.
· By not using the guidelines, parole panels do not take advantage of the best tool for deciding the most appropriate parole candidates for release.
Conclusion
In 1987, the Legislature required the Board of Pardons and Paroles (the Parole Board) to develop and implement parole guidelines to provide objective criteria to assist in decision making, and help make parole decisions more consistent. Despite numerous reports citing the Parole Board’s lack of adherence to the guidelines, parole panels continue to deviate from the established guidelines. Parole approval rates show a significant departure from the adopted parole probability rates, further demonstrating the parole panels’ reluctance to use this tool as it was intended by the Legislature.
Sunset staff evaluated the Parole Board’s use of the parole guidelines, and found inconsistent approval rates among parole panels for comparable guideline scores. In addition, staff found that the Parole Board has not complied with the adopted parole approval rates since the inception of the guidelines. Periodic evaluation and reporting, along with consistent use of clear, objective decision-making criteria would provide greater uniformity and fairness in parole decisions, increase legislative accountability, and enhance the public’s confidence in the parole process.