An uncertain participant: victim input and the black box of discretionary parole release

   Objective: to analyze the impact of the victim’s input in the parole process according to the US legislation.

   Methods: dialectical approach to cognition of social phenomena, allowing to analyze them in historical development and functioning in the context of the totality of objective and subjective factors, which predetermined the following research methods: formal-logical and sociological.

   Results: Little is understood about the parole release process, as state parole boards predominately operate with incredible discretion and keep their deliberations and rationales hidden from public view. Even less is understood about the intersection of the inscrutable parole release decision-making process and victim rights. As the victim rights movement mobilized in the
1970s, victims, instead of remaining passive witnesses, came to wield significant influence over the release decision process. Today, victim participation in parole proceedings is increasing as most parole boards proclaim how important victims’ voices are and, in turn, actively incorporate victim input into their release calculus. Yet, it is not entirely clear what role, if any, victims should have in the release process because it is not entirely clear what purposes parole release should serve more generally. Rather than resolving these pressing questions that are at the heart of the release decision, the current system gives individual parole board members a great degree of discretion when it comes to how they approach victim input and the role it should serve. This approach has resulted in a release process that treats victim input in a troubling and inconsistent manner, which is unfair to inmates, victims, and parole board members alike.

   Scientific novelty: To make sense of this situation, this paper identifies four analytical frameworks for understanding discretionary parole release, which reveal board members’ options for approaching victim input. Ultimately, the author proposes that parole boards should approach the release decision as an evaluation of both the inmate’s rehabilitation and the extent to which sentencing’s retributive and deterrent goals have been met. In this vein, victim input should only influence the release decision if it provides information, not emotion, that the inmate is not rehabilitated or that the judge's minimum
sentence did not accurately reflect the impact of the crime and that retribution or deterrence has not been met. In recognition of the implications of such an approach, the article proposes procedural changes to the release decision and structural changes to parole boards. These recommended reforms are animated by principles of equity, transparency, and procedural justice. Applying this approach to victim input in the parole process and implementing the corresponding procedural changes can hopefully create a system that is fairer for inmates, minimizes risks of secondary harms to victims, and protects board members from improper external pressures.

   Practical significance: the main provisions and conclusions of the article can be used in scientific, pedagogical and law enforcement activities when considering the issues related to parole release process.

1. About the Parole Board, Va. Parole Bd. https://vpb.virginia.gov/about-the-parole-board/ [https://perma.cc/S58U-X9UR]

2. Baker, A. (2018a, Apr. 27). Man Who Killed 2 Officers in '71 Is Released From Prison. N. Y. Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/27/nyregion/herman-bell-parole.html [https://perma.cc/59EJ-ZNU6].

3. Baker, A. (2018b, Mar. 14). Nearly 5 Decades Later, Man Who Killed New York Officers Wins Parole. N. Y. Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/14/nyregion/herman-bell-nypd-parole.html [https://perma.cc/5QRP-8HWQ].

4. Bandes, S. (2000). When Victims Seek Closure: Forgiveness, Vengeance and the Role of Government. Fordham Urb. L.J., 27, 1599, 1603.

5. Bazelon, L., & Green, B. A. (2020). Victims' Rights from a Restorative Perspective. OHIO ST. J. Crim. L., 17, 293, 299–301.

6. Bergazzi, M., & Burkett, J. (2020, May 8). Virginia Inspector General Reviewing Controversial Parole Decision of Man Who Murdered Richmond Cop, CBS 6. News Richmond. https://www.wtvr.com/news/local-news/virginia-watchdog-reviewing-controversial-parole-decision-of-man-who-murdered-cop [https://perma.cc/K8V6-CNSR].

7. Bogel-Burroughs, N. (2021, Sept. 1). Parole Board Recommends Release of Sirhan Sirhan, Robert F. Kennedy's Assassin. N.Y. Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/27/us/sirhan-sirhan-parole-rfk.html [https://perma.cc/BA6H-EVBU].

8. Burkes, K. J. et al. (2017). Releasing Authority Chairs: A Comparative Snapshot Across Three Decades. Robina Inst. of Crim. L. & Crim. Just. https://robinainstitute.umn.edu/sites/robinainstitute.umn.edu/files/parole_chairs_report_final.pdf [https://perma.cc/4BBA-DC2Y].

9. Cohen, N. P., & Gobert, J. J. (1983). The Law of Probation and Parole (2^d ed.).

10. Division of Release. (2021, Sept. 9). N.J. State Parole Bd. https://www.nj.gov/parole/functions/release-division/ [https://perma.cc/F9JZ-NDN7].

11. Epstein, N. (2021). An uncertain participant: victim input and the black box of discretionary parole release. Fordham Law Review, 90, 789–830.

12. Families, PBA Outraged over Parole for Cop Killer Herman Bell. (2018, Mar. 15). ABC7 N.Y. https://abc7ny.com/parole-board-herman-bell-killing-nypd-pba-patrolmen-benevolent-association/3220591/ [https://perma.cc/NMG6-Z7YS].

13. Fenner, A., & Harmon, B. (2004, Feb. 4). Slain Cop's Kin Urge Release of One Killer. N. Y. Daily News. https://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/slain-kin-urge-release-killer-article-1.657766 [https://perma.cc/SPA7-J6FV].

14. Fleming, R. (2019, Nov. 21). Lindsey Graham Remarks Offer Hope for Reinstatement of Federal Parole. Filter Mag. https://filtermag.org/lindsey-graham-federal-parole/ [https://perma.cc/4H9W-CE3X].

15. Frase, R. S. (2005). Purpose: Punishment Purposes. STAN. L. Rev., 58, 67, 73.

16. Geiger, D. (2020, Sept. 3). Killer and Rapist Who Admitted Brutal Double Murder Was Motivated by Hatred of Women Controversially Paroled in NY, OXYGEN. https://www.oxygen.com/crime-news/sam-ayala-convicted-of-double-murder-and-rape-of-2-women-in-1977-paroled [https://perma.cc/C8UV-UBS4].

17. Giannini, M. M. (2001). The Swinging Pendulum of Victims' Rights: The Enforceability of Indiana's Victims' Rights Law. IND. L. Rev., 34, 1157, 1160–1162.

18. Giannini, M. M. (2010). Redeeming an Empty Promise: Procedural Justice, the Crime Victims' Rights Act, and the Victim's Right to Be Reasonably Protected from the Accused. Tenn. L. Rev., 78, 47, 85.

19. Gonnerman, J. (2019, Nov. 15). Prepping for Parole. New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/12/02/prepping-for-parole [https://perma.cc/63XR-5GZV].

20. Green, B. A., & Bazelon, L. (2020). Restorative Justice from Prosecutors' Perspective. Fordham L. Rev., 88, 2287, 2291.

21. Gross, D. A. (2019, Jan. 25). The Eleventh Parole Hearing of Jalil Abdul Muntaqim. New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/the-eleventh-parole-hearing-of-jalil-abdul-muntaqim [https://perma.cc/C8NG-KCSQ].

22. Herrington, L. H. et al. (1982). Final Report of the President's Task Force on Victims of Crime (pp. 76, 114). https://ovc.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh226/files/media/document/87299.pdf [https://perma.cc/VS63-MN9G].

23. Hogan, B. (2020, Sept. 29). GOP State Lawmakers Introduce Bill to Strengthen Parole Board Oversight, N.Y. Post. https://nypost.com/2020/09/29/state-gop-introduces-bill-to-strengthen-parole-board-oversight/ [https://perma.cc/XT2Q-BS6F].

24. Information Considered at a Parole Suitability Hearing. CAL. Dep't of Corr. & Rehabilitation, https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/bph/parole-suitability-hearings-overview/information-considered-at-a-parole-suitability-hearing/ [https://perma.cc/NE53-2BVN].

25. Kaeble, D. (2016). U.S. Dep't Of Just., Probation and Parole in the United States, 20.

26. Kennedy, R. (2021, Sept. 1). Robert Kennedy Was My Dad. His Assassin Doesn't Deserve Parole., N.Y. Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/01/opinion/sirhan-sirhan-parole-kennedy.html [https://perma.cc/UNX7-A7HD].

27. Letter from Bill de Blasio, Mayor of the City of New York, to Tina M. Stanford, Chairwoman of the New York State Bd. of Parole. (2018, Mar. 23). https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/public_information/parole-board-letter-bell.pdf [https://perma.cc/P479-86S4].

28. Making a Statement: Victim Input into the Parole Process. Pa. Off. of the Victim Advoc. https://www.ova.pa.gov/Documents/Making%20a%20Statement%20English.pdf [https://perma.cc/8ZZP-PPXN].

29. Making Parole Decisions, Pa. Parole Bd. https://www.parole.pa.gov/Parole%20Process/Making%20Parole%20Decisions/Pages/default.aspx [https://perma.cc/7H6N-TNF5].

30. Marlowe, J. (2018, Mar. 22). After Nearly 45 Years of Incarceration, Herman Bell Wins Parole. Colorlines. https://www.colorlines.com/articles/after-nearly-45-years-incarceration-herman-bell-wins-parole [https://perma.cc/4V33-A4UV].

31. Marquart, J. W. (2005). Bringing Victims In, But How Far. Criminology & Pub. Pol'y, 4, 329, 330.

32. Medwed, D. S. (2008). The Innocent Prisoner's Dilemma: Consequences of Failing to Admit Guilt at Parole Hearings. IOWA L. Rev., 93, 491, 499.

33. Moore, T. et al. (2018, Mar. 14). Law Enforcement Rages over Cop Killer's Parole. N. Y. Post. https://nypost.com/2018/03/14/law-enforcement-rages-over-cop-killers-parole/ [https://perma.cc/5WFV-6ZCH].

34. Morgan, K., & Smith, B. L. (2005). Victims, Punishment, and Parole: The Effect of Victim Participation on Parole Hearings. Criminology & Pub. Pol'y, 4, 333, 335–336.

35. N. J. State Parole Bd. (2012). The Parole Book : A Handbook on Parole Procedures for Adult and Young Adult Inmates, 47–48 (5^th ed.). https://www.nj.gov/parole/docs/AdultParoleHandbook.pdf [https://perma.cc/J6MA-3XY9].

36. New York City Police Dep't, The Truth About Herman Bell. Press Release (2018, Apr. 20). https://www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/news/f0420/the-truth-herman-bell#/0 [https://perma.cc/5XPP-VH92].

37. O'Hara, E. A. (2006). Victims and Prison Release: A Modest Proposal. Fed. Sent'g Rep., 19, 130, 130.

38. Ohio Dep't of Rehab. & Corr. https://drc.ohio.gov/ https://perma.cc/WXX3-MRDH

39. Parsonage, W. et al. (1992). Victim Impact Testimony and Pennsylvania's Parole Decision-Making Process: A Pilot Study. Crim. Just. Pol'y Rev., 6, 187, 194.

40. Pisciotta, A. W. (1983). Scientific Reform: The "New Penology" at Elmira, 1876–1900. Crime & Delinquency, 29, 613, 616.

41. Polowek, K. (2005). Victim Participatory Rights in Parole: Their Role and the Dynamics of Victim Influence as Seen by Board Members : PhD dissertation (pp. 126–127). Simon Frasier University. summit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/10276/etd2042.pdf [https://perma.cc/F7Z2-YSJ6].

42. Reitz, K. R. (2020). Prison-Release Reform and American Decarceration. Minn. L. Rev., 104, 2741, 2751.

43. Rhine, E. E. et al. (2017). The Future of Parole Release. Crime & Just., 46, 279, 280.

44. Rhine, E. E. et al. (2018, Apr. 3). Parole Boards Within Indeterminate and Determinate Sentencing Structures. Robina Inst. of crim. L. & Crim. Just. https://robinainstitute.umn.edu/news-views/parole-boards-within-indeterminate-and-determinate-sentencing-structures [https://perma.cc/FA59-K9VE].

45. Roberts, J. V. (2009). Listening to the Crime Victim: Evaluating Victim Input at Sentencing and Parole. Crime & Just., 38, 347, 382.

46. Robinson, P. H. (2002). Should the Victims' Rights Movement Have Influence over Criminal Law Formulation and Adjudication? McGeorge L. Rev., 33, 749, 758.

47. Rodriguez, A. (2019). The Obscure Legacy of Mass Incarceration: Parole Board Abuses of People Serving Parole Eligible Life Sentences. Cuny L. Rev. F., 22, 33, 52–53.

48. Rosenau, W. (2013). "Our Backs Are Against the Wall": The Black Liberation Army and Domestic Terrorism in 1970s America. Stud. Conflict & Terrorism, 36, 176.

49. Rosenhall, L., & Watson, A. (2020, June 22). From Prison to the Halls of Power: A Politician's Son Lobbies to Let People on Parole Vote. Calmatters. https://calmatters.org/projects/california-parolees-voting-rights-nunez-aca6/ [https://perma.cc/F75V-6NLY].

50. Ruhland, E. L. et al. (2017). The Continuing Leverage of Releasing Authorities: Findings from a National Survey. Robina Inst. of Crim. L. & Crim. Just. https://robinainstitute.umn.edu/sites/robinainstitute.umn.edu/files/final_national_parole_survey_2017 pdf [https://perma.cc/UP5X-M76E].

51. Russell, S. F. (2014). Review for Release: Juvenile Offenders, State Parole Practices, and the Eighth Amendment. IND. L.J., 89, 373, 400, 404–405.

52. Sanchez, R., & Mossburg, Ch. (2021, Aug. 28). Board Recommends Parole For RFK Assassin Sirhan Sirhan on 16^th Attempt. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/27/us/sirhan-sirhan-parole-rfk-assassination/index.html [https://perma.cc/8BJV-URKS].

53. Schwartzapfel, B. (2015, July 11). How Parole Boards Keep Prisoners in the Dark and Behind Bars. Wash. Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/the-power-and-politics-of-parole-boards/2015/07/10/49c1844e-1f71-11e5-84d5-eb37ee8eaa61_story.html [https://perma.cc/5JBS-EEKK].

54. Sered, D. (2019). Until We Reckon, 30–31.

55. Slater, D. (2020, Jan. 1). Can You Talk Your Way Out of a Life Sentence. N.Y. Times Mag. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/01/magazine/prison-parole-california.html [https://perma.cc/7W4Z-JHV7].

56. Smith, B. L. et al. (1997). The Effect of Victim Participation on Parole Decisions: Results from a Southeastern State. CRIM. Just. Pol'y Rev., 8, 57, 71.

57. Va. Parole Bd. https://vpb.virginia.gov/ [https://perma.cc/TJP7-W5G2].

58. Victim Offender Dialogue. Minn. Dep't of Corr. https://mn.gov/doc/victims/restorative-justice/victim-initiated-restorative-practices/victim-offender-dialogue/ [https://perma.cc/UW8X-KKHF].

59. Victim Services Brochure. Ala. Bureau of Pardons & Paroles, https://paroles.alabama.gov/victim-services/ [https://perma.cc/9B7T-LFS5].

60. Victim Services: Information for Crime Victims. N.J. State Parole Bd. https://www.nj.gov/parole/functions/victim-services/ [https://perma.cc/K342-8QTP].

61. Victims' Rights in the Parole Process. Ga. State Bd. of pardons & Paroles, https://pap.georgia.gov/georgia-office-victim-services/victims-rights-parole-process [https://perma.cc/HKZ5-D424].

62. Victims Services. State of Iowa Bd. of Parole. https://bop.iowa.gov/victim-services [https://perma.cc/U3E2-K57D].

63. Virginia Parole Board, Parole Decisions for October 2020, with Reasons. (2020). https://vpb.virginia.gov/files/1185/vpb-decisions-oct20.pdf [https://perma.cc/S8CE-V7EV].

64. Weisberg, R. et al. (2011). Life in Limbo : An Examination of Parole Release for Prisoners Serving Life Sentences with the Possibility of Parole in California. https://law.stanford.edu/index.php?webauth-document=child-page/164096/doc/slspublic/SCJC_report_Parole_Release_for_Lifers.pdf [https://perma.cc/SN3D-D26K].

65. Young, K. M. (2016). Parole Hearings and Victims' Rights: Implementation, Ambiguity, and Reform. Conn. L. Rev., 49, 431, 444-45.