Sentencing Guidelines

Parole Decision Guidelines

Prior to the parole board study, there was no written general policy providing a framework within which individual case decisions could be made. Study of the decisions of the board in prior years provided the basis for the guidelines. They were intended to structure and control, but not to eliminate, the parole board's discretion. They were developed and used voluntarily by the parole board, rather than established by legislation.

The guidelines took the form of a two-dimensional chart. One dimension listed the seriousness of the offender's commitment offense, designating six categories of offense seriousness. For each category, the commission listed examples of common offense behaviors, which had been arrived at by consensus judgments of the commission members. The other dimension defined four categories of “risk” (of parole violation). An empirically developed parole prediction device, called a “salient factor score,” established these classifications of offenders.

Each intersection indicated a decision range, which specified the customary paroling policy in terms of the number of months to be served before release (subject to the limitations of the judicially imposed sentence) assuming the prisoner had demonstrated good institutional behavior. After the offender was classified according to both the seriousness of the offense and the risk of parole violation if released, the parole board member or hearing examiner checked the grid to determine the expected decision. The guidelines provided a statement of the usual policy and suggested a range of months to allow for board discretion within broad seriousness and risk categories. When the parole board wished to make the decision outside the expected range, then it was required to specify the factors that made that particular case unusual. Examples might be particularly aggravating or mitigating factors, unusually good or poor institutional adjustment, or credit for time served on a sentence in another jurisdiction. Decisions outside the guideline ranges were not only permitted but also expected, and they were made in about 20 percent of the cases, with specific reasons given. The board also established procedures for examining, updating, or modifying the guidelines in periodic reviews.

...