WASHINGTON — A recent report by the Prison Policy Initiative argues that discretionary parole should be accessible to all incarcerated people, including those in states that are considered to have abolished parole.
The report explains that it is a common, but misleading, assumption that parole is either entirely absent or fully available across states. In reality, states that have abolished discretionary parole continue to make an array of decisions regarding release, supervision and clemency.
Since the 1970s, more than a dozen states have shifted toward “truth-in-sentencing” systems, which, the report argues, have eliminated “a huge opportunity for early release for the vast majority of people entering prisons.”
In the 17 states and the District of Columbia that have abolished discretionary parole, “hollowed-out” parole systems remain in place, allowing some people to remain eligible for parole under strict and limited criteria. According to the report, these states are still “holding hearings and making a variety of decisions related to release and supervision,” even though most incarcerated people are required to serve their full sentences without routine parole review.
Across these states, the Prison Policy Initiative found that parole eligibility and outcomes depend heavily on state policy and history.
For example, in all 17 states and the District of Columbia, people “who committed crimes before parole was abolished are still eligible for parole.”
Additionally, according to the report, “in 10 states, there are other situations that make someone eligible for discretionary parole, such as having a life sentence (4 states), being a youth or young adult at the time of the crime (5 states), or being sentenced outside of the truth-in-sentencing guidelines (3 states).”
Most states also allow medical parole; however, those programs are limited and rarely result in release.
The Prison Policy Initiative highlights several “release valves” that states could implement to reevaluate lengthy prison sentences and release individuals whose continued incarceration is no longer justified. These mechanisms include “medical parole, resentencing, and earned or good time systems.”
Although states without discretionary parole have early-release mechanisms, the report argues that, in practice, they are often extremely limited.
Because medical parole is difficult for most applicants to obtain, the report states that “extremely ill or incapacitated people remain locked up and sometimes die before their cases are considered.”
Additionally, “second look” laws allow courts to review lengthy sentences after a specified period has been served. Although the report says this mechanism shows significant promise for preventing excessive prison sentences, only 15 states have adopted such laws.
Furthermore, although clemency is available in most states, the report says most governors “shy away from such merciful actions due to inevitable political blowback.”
The Prison Policy Initiative concludes that “every incarcerated person should have access to discretionary parole as a bedrock opportunity for release after showing transformation and preparedness.”
“Lawmakers in the 18 jurisdictions that have curtailed discretionary parole should consider that loved ones and taxpayers are footing the bill for such an ineffective approach.”
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
