Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Question about parole in the US
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 04:37:10 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <vjdp9m$1vjok$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vjdh1f$1bvi5$8@dont-email.me> <vjdiq1$1qndu$1@dont-email.me> <vjdmhg$1qqma$3@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 05:37:10 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ea886128c617c2ae542cc2e935bc0448";
	logging-data="2084628"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+5svOB/vCxHlECkgGnkl7zTyESsx7RaUs="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qFd+iYndqJrXG35rCfC9ohHeD4M=
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Bytes: 2745

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>On 2024-12-11 9:46 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>>>I just finished watching an HBO documentary called Nature of the Crime
>>>and it had a rather surprising/puzzling factoid at the end. The film is
>>>about parole and the process that a parole board goes through to decide
>>>if someone who is eligible for parole should be released.

>>>The factoid that puzzles me is this: "34 states have parole systems,
>>>each with their own procedures". The thing I don't understand is what
>>>happens in the other 16 states? (I'm not even going to get into DC,
>>>Puerto Rico, Guam, and all of those places.) Do the other 16 states not
>>>allow parole at all?? Or do they have some other process to decide if
>>>someone has served enough time to be considered for release?

>>>I'm having trouble believing that a state would have no process for
>>>letting someone deemed no longer a major risk to society being released.
>>>I don't know your Constitution well enough to cite a section that
>>>guarantees all state (and federal) prisoners some kind of parole (or
>>>parole-like) process for prisoners deemed deserving.

>>My state abolished parole in 1978.

>>Judges stopped giving indetermiinate sentences, but there's a different
>>procedure for good behavior and reduction of time in prison.

>Ah, the world makes sense again! It just seemed unreasonable that a 
>state could have no way at all to recognize a prisoner that had "learned 
>his lesson" whatever that might mean.

At the time, parole boards had a terrible reputation and were being
blamed for letting prisoners out early who had committed violent crimes,
second guessing the trial court judges. But those indefinite sentences
were a problem of unequal administration of justice.