A Table Before Me in the Presence of My Enemies: Susan Atkins and the Embodiment of Aging and Frailty on Parole

In this article I rely on 50 years’ worth of parole hearing transcripts in the Manson family cases to argue that, on parole, the embodiment of aging is treated evasively and with hostility by the parole board. The parole board’s difficulty to reconcile the applicant’s youthful and violent past with their aging, frail present, almost always results in a rejection of the embodied present and future—and of parole. Following an explanation of the California parole process, emphasizing the role that time and aging plays in its different stages, I analyze Susan Atkins’ last parole hearing as an example. To show the general implications of the analysis, and its disastrous consequences for public health, I place the argument in the context of California’s covid-19 prison crisis.

Parole practises in Lithuania: Factors predicting court decisions

This article examines factors that predict parole decisions in Lithuanian courts. The study state has a two-stage discretionary parole system where applicants are first evaluated through a parole board hearing, and the board’s decision is then reviewed in court. The study sample included 360 court verdicts from various court institutions. Intergroup comparisons suggest that parole boards tend to grant parole more often than courts. The results of regression analysis suggest that courts weigh heavily on the decision made by the parole board as well as the number of misconduct reports, time left to serve and previous parole or probation violations.

Osborn v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61, Supreme Court

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Osborn v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61, Supreme Court. This case concerned three applicants who, it was contended, had been subject to procedurally unfair processes by the Parole Board. In arguing their cases they had primarily relied upon Article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The UKSC preferred the common law principle of procedural fairness. This case note examines that principle and the concept of common law rights more generally in relation to the ECHR and the Human Rights Act 1998. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Parole Board Decision Making and Constitutional Rights

Parole board decision making has changed dramatically over the last century, mirroring broader trends in criminal punishment. Even though parole decisions affect the length of prison sentences and the US Supreme Court has safeguarded defendants’ rights during the sentencing phase of criminal proceedings, the court has largely declined to interfere in parole. After briefly surveying the historical evolution of parole in the United States, this article proceeds in two parts. First, the article analyzes Supreme Court cases involving sentencing and parole and discusses questions raised by those decisions. Second, the article examines modern studies of parole board decisions and highlights ethical and legal questions raised by the research. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Volume 17 is October 2021. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

Long Road to Freedom: Factors Delaying Prisoners’ Early Release from Prison

The purpose of the study was to identify the factors that delay the granting of early release to prisoners who are eligible for early release according to the Israeli law. The study is based on participatory observations of parole board hearings, interviews with parole board members, and content analysis of protocols of parole boards and legal rulings. The main factors identified in delaying release are related to the numerous postponements of hearings and delays in receiving documents from relevant parties. These factors are discussed in detail, offering recommendation for improvement and thus increasing the number of early releases.

Release or Denial: Evaluating the Roles of Emotion and Risk in Parole Decisions

Parole boards often incorporate numerous factors when making release decisions. These factors are typically related to the inmates’ case files. However, in some instances, parole boards’ decisions are influenced by factors outside of the case files, sometimes referred to as extra-legal factors. According to the emotion as social information model, emotion can communicate specific messages to others, and in this case, parole board members might unknowingly incorporate their own emotions and inmates’ emotional displays into their decisions. The current study examines the role of parole board member and inmate emotional expressions as predictors of parole release decisions. Parole hearings were coded for emotion, parole board and inmate gender, supporter presence, and risk scores. Overall, risk scores and parole board members’ emotions predicted release decisions. Higher risk scores were associated with a lower likelihood of release, and inmates’ negative emotion was related to a lower likelihood of release. Implications are discussed.