An Editorial in Response to States Considering 
the Abolition of Parole

by Karen Fuller, M.S.W. - APPA Public Information Coordinator

The American Probation and Parole Association’s (APPA) position is that parole and the parole decision-making process are critical elements of the felony sentence and should not be abridged or abolished. The primary mission of paroling authorities is to protect the public. It simply makes good sense to screen serious offenders before they return to the community. Parole then becomes the public’s last line of defense against the release of unsuitable serious offenders. 

Parole can actually make a sentencing system tougher by making release from prison a privilege, rather than a right. When states abolish parole, thus, reducing or removing the discretion of paroling authorities, they replace a rational, controlled system of “earned” release with “automatic” release for nearly all inmates. A system without parole sounds tough, but such a system removes critical gate-keeping that protects victims and communities by making release from prison automatic. In a recent study, inmates released in states than had abolished parole served an average of seven months less than inmates in states with parole. 

In the absence of parole, criminals are released based upon simple mathematical calculations of time served. One of the best-known examples of how the public is endangered by the abolition of parole is the case of Polly Klaas. Klaas’ murderer, Richard Allen Davis, was denied parole by a parole board on six occasions. In 1977, California, in its quest to be “tough on crime”, abolished parole for certain offenses and moved to a truth-in-sentencing model. This turn of events made it mandatory that inmate Davis be released from prison. It was during his time of community release that he committed the horrendous crime for which he now sits on death row.

Furthermore, the abolition of parole robs crime victims of one of their most valuable allies in the criminal justice system. Parole boards provide an important human point of contact for crime victims as a criminal sentence is carried out. The majority of states now allow crime victims to attend and testify at parole hearings. Parole hearings prior to a criminal’s release give victims an opportunity for a full airing of their concerns and grievances. Often victims are deprived this opportunity on the front end as a result of criminals being sent to prison on a plea-bargained sentence rather than after a full and open court hearing. Systems that have abolished parole in favor of determinate sentencing do not require or encourage a victims involvement in release decision-making.

[Print This Editorial]