User:Subaitar34/sandbox

Refresher from Step 2 Katz:

"I thought the Life Imprisonment in the U.S. article was underdeveloped but had a good starting point. I found it lacked the inclusion of opposing viewpoints and the modern day discussion towards the sentence, which is what my organization is built off of. I have already put my plan in place to start the inclusion of this by posting onto the respective talk page, which I hope to see responses to within the next few days. In terms of Parole boards, I believe I can add to the U.S. subsection based on my current research of parole board reform. Specifically, I’d like to add some of the history of the formation of the parole, as this is something explicitly reviewed a few times in my sources. I’d also consider proposing the addition of history on the topic of reform, or at least a link to an article (or maybe even starting a page on Parole board reform in the U.S., if there is enough information on that) in order to include more aspects of how parole boards are formed and what controversies and varying opinions lie behind the concept itself. This has also been proposed by me on the talk page for the article.The articles I’ve chosen are very concise and informative, but lack depth and discussion on the sociological and ideological aspects of it, which I believe the Katz Memo and Step One has prepared me for well. I don’t imagine that my changes will be as sweeping and dramatic as I’m making it seem, but hopefully they can at least start a discussion where other qualified people can contribute and learn from."

My additions and edits will be bolded.

For life imprisonment in the united states

Life imprisonment is uniquely prevalent in the United States, where 1 in every 2,000 inhabitants are imprisoned for life. There are many U.S. states in which a convict can be released on parole after a decade or more has passed, but in California, people sentenced to life imprisonment can normally apply for parole after seven years. The laws in the United States divide life sentences between "determinate life sentences" and "indeterminate life sentences", indicating the possibility of an abridged sentence, usually through the process of parole. For example, sentences of "15 years to life," "25 years to life," or "life with mercy" are called "indeterminate life sentences", while a sentence of "life without the possibility of parole" or "life without mercy" is called a "determinate life sentence". Any potential for parole is not guaranteed but discretionary, making it an indeterminate sentence. Even if a sentence specifically denies the possibility of parole, government officials may have the power to grant an amnesty, to reprieve, or to commute a sentence to time served.

Added an introductory sentence and citation [2]. Also cleaned up the determinate/indeterminate definition.

History

In the 1860s, reformation became favored over penitence in American penology, with the role of prisons seen as reforming prisoners, who were imprisoned until reform was achieved. The concepts of parole and indeterminate sentencing were regarded as forward-looking in the 1870s. The initial concept of parole came from the idea that prisoners began their path to rehabilitation during their sentence, and their successful rehabilitation could be recognizable by a parole board. The importance was placed on having prisoners deemed ready to enter society as soon as possible. However, the ideals were not as successful as had been hoped. Crime was not eradicated, reformatories had the same problems as prisons on politicization and underfunding, and indeterminate sentencing became undermined by prisoners, who quickly found that it was possible to "beat the system" by pretense to get a better chance of winning parole. Many were soon back in custody. Similarly, prison authorities could twist it to their advantage by using those granted parole or probation to spy on and actively help to imprison other people, or sometimes by selectively denying parole. However, the biggest cause of the reformatories' failure to live up to expectations was that despite the enthusiasm of reformers and Zebulon Brockway's call for an end to vengeance in criminal justice, those within the prison environment, both inmates and guards alike, continued to conceive of prison as a place of retribution.

Statistics

From article:

Over 159,000 people were serving life sentences as of 2012, with just under a third, nearly 50,000, serving life without a chance of parole. In 1993, the Times survey found, about 20 percent of all lifers had no chance of parole. By 2004, that had risen to 28 percent.

As a result, the US is now housing by far the world's largest and most permanent population of prisoners who are guaranteed to die of old age behind bars. At the Louisiana State Penitentiary, for instance, more than 3,000 of the 5,100 prisoners are serving life with a chance of parole, and most of the remaining 2,100 are serving sentences so long that they cannot be completed in a typical lifetime. About 150 inmates have died there in the time period between the years of 2000 and 2005. An article for QZ reported that 35% of all the world's prison lifers are in the US.

My edits:

Over 200,000 people, or about 1 in 7 prisoners in the United States, were serving life or virtual life sentences in 2019. Over 50,000 are serving life without a change of parole. In 1993, the Times survey found, about 20 percent of all lifers had no chance of parole. By 2004, that had risen to 28 percent.

The US is now housing by far the world's largest and most permanent population of prisoners who are guaranteed to die of old age behind bars. At the Louisiana State Penitentiary, for instance, more than 3,000 of the 5,100 prisoners are serving life with a chance of parole, and most of the remaining 2,100 are serving sentences so long that they cannot be completed in a typical lifetime. About 150 inmates have died there in the time period between the years of 2000 and 2005. The United States holds 40% of the world’s prisoners with life sentences, more than the next 113 countries combined.

Parole and nonviolent offenses

Under the federal criminal code, however, with respect to offenses committed after December 1, 1987, parole has been abolished for all sentences handed down by the federal system, including life sentences. A life sentence from a federal court will therefore result in imprisonment for the life of the defendant unless a pardon or reprieve is granted by the President or if, upon appeal, the conviction is quashed.

Over 3,200 people nationwide are serving life terms without a chance of parole for nonviolent offenses. Of those prisoners, 80 percent are behind bars for drug-related convictions: 65 percent are African-American, 18 percent are Latino, and 16 percent are white. The ACLU has called the statistics proof of "extreme racial disparities." Some of the crimes that led to life sentences include stealing gas from a truck and shoplifting but only for those with a pattern of habitual criminal offenses. A large number of those imprisoned for life had no prior criminal history but were given the sentence because of the aggravated nature of their crimes.

Added link for federal pardoning, but can't find the needed citation.

Debates

Increased use of the life imprisonment sentence, especially life without parole, came in response to debates on capital punishment. In fact, many politicians, especially in the 2020 Democratic election, expressed their emphasis on replacing the death penalty with life without parole. Additionally, inflicting the death penalty is more costly to the state and taxpayer than keeping a prisoner for the duration of their life.

A common argument against life without parole is that it is equally as immoral as the death penalty, as it still sentences one to die in prison. Certain organizations and campaigns have been founded with a goal to work against life imprisonment and improve the rate of release. For example, the #DropLWOP campaign is dedicated to dropping the life without parole sentence and providing an automatic commutation and chance to see a parole board for all prisoners serving life sentences.

For parole board

United States

There are 52 parole boards in operation in the United States. Some states require all members to possess a four year degree, while others do not. Additionally, some states require at least one member to be an ex-convict, and some require corrections experience, but there are no nation-wide parole board qualifications. Each state has a different requirement for parole board appointment.

On the federal level, there is no longer parole except for certain military and foreign crimes. The United States Federal Sentencing Guidelines (enacted in 1987) discontinued parole for those convicted of federal crimes for offenses committed after November 1, 1987. Instead of parole the legislation provided that judges may specify as part of sentencing, a period of supervised release to be served after the prison sentence. Prisoners may also receive time off their sentences for "good behavior". However, this truth in sentencing legislation also requires federal prisoners to serve at least 85 percent of their sentences. The United States Parole Commission remains the parole board for those who committed a federal offense before November 1, 1987, as well as those who committed a District of Columbia Code offense before August 5, 2000, a Uniform Code of Military Justice offense and are parole-eligible, and persons who are serving prison terms imposed by foreign countries and have been transferred to the United States to serve their sentence.

Every U.S. state also has a parole board. The autonomy of the board from the state governor also varies; in some states the boards are more powerful than in others. In some states the board is an independent agency while in others it is a body of the department of corrections. In 44 states, the parole members are chosen by the governor. Parole boards throughout the states often act on the governor's influence and reportedly feel the need to do to ensure job security. However, fourteen states have eliminated or severely restricted access to parole, turning instead to "determinate sentencing" which specifies the exact length of sentence, subject still, in most cases, to time off the sentence for good behaviour.

Nine states in the United States have boards of pardons and paroles that exclusively grants all state pardons. Alabama (Board of Pardons and Paroles), Connecticut (Board of Pardons and Paroles), Georgia (Board of Pardons and Paroles), Idaho (Commission of Pardons and Paroles), Minnesota (Board of Pardons), Nebraska (Board of Pardons), Nevada (Board of Pardon commissioners, South Carolina (Board of Probation, Parole and Pardon), and Utah (Board of Pardons and Paroles) are the states in the United States with such boards.

Mississippi's state constitution includes a unique provision that any inmate seeking a pardon from that state's governor must, at least thirty days before making the request, publish a legal notice of their request for a pardon in a newspaper located in or near the county where the inmate seeking the pardon was convicted and sentenced. In addition Mississippi courts have held that a pardon when given does not erase the criminal record.

Determinate sentencing has also severely reduced the power of many parole boards. Often, consideration of the opinion of the victim or victims or their family is taken into account in the board's final determination (see victims' rights). Compared to the states still using indeterminate sentencing and relying more heavily on parole, those using determinate sentencing contributed less to the higher incarceration rates from 1980-2009.

Parole boards have often been looked at as a contributor towards mass incarceration and as an area needing great reform. Significant research has not yet been made into the interconnection of parole and other sectors such as media and politics, but many call for a separation between the sectors and a sweeping de-politicization of the appointment process. Additionally, many have looked towards increasing qualifications for parole board members to be comparable with those of judges. Alongside the heightening of standards, a general call of an increase in comprehensive training, transparency, and accountability of parole boards has been widely called for, as many current parole board members have never stepped foot in a prison, and an increase of training often results in a rise of fair and just hearings.

For parole

Early history

Penologist Zebulon Brockway introduced parole when he became superintendent of Elmira Reformatory in Elmira, New York. To manage prison populations and rehabilitate those incarcerated, he instituted a two-part strategy that consisted of indeterminate sentences and parole releases. This was significant in prison reform due to its implication that prisoners began their rehabilitation during incarceration, which would be recognizable by a parole board. It also provided newfound emphasis on prisoners' protection from cruel and unusual punishment.

Modern history

...

The United States is the only nation in the world where parole is a politically divisive issue. During elections, politicians whose administrations parole any large number of prisoners (or, perhaps, one notorious criminal) are typically attacked by their opponents as being "soft on crime". Beginning from the initiation of the war on drugs in the 70's, politicians began to advertise their “tough on crime” stances, encouraging a tightening of penal policy and resulting in longer sentences for what were previously referred to as minor drug violations. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, at least sixteen states have removed the option of parole entirely, and four more have abolished parole for certain violent offenders. However, during the rise of mass incarceration in the 70's, the states that continued to use parole and indeterminate sentencing contributed more to rising incarceration rates than those without parole boards. Said states implemented a dramatic decrease of parole releases, which inevitably resulted in longer sentences for more prisoners. From 1980 to 2009, indeterminate sentencing states made up nine of the ten states with the highest incarceration rate.

Starting in the 1980's, parole was revisited as a method once again to manage prison populations and as financial motivation to prevent further budget straining. The new approach to parole release was accompanied with the growth of a mass surveillance state. The supervision practices of increased drug testing, intensive supervision, unannounced visits and home confinement are widely used today. Additionally, a growing condition of parole was to assume the role of informant towards frequently surveilled communities.

The Great Recession of 2008 coupled with the Twin Towers attack on September 11, 2001 contributed to the public emphasis on the war on terror and eventually led to a trend of lowering incarceration. In fact, presidential politics between 2001 and 2012 were, for the first time in ten years, not focused on domestic crime control and even saw the promotion of the Second Chance Act by George Bush, who used the act to pledge federal money for reentry as a symbol of his "compassionate conservatism".

Debates and reform efforts on parole

Recent history brought forth many new stances on the problems of parole and indeterminate sentencing. While some look towards reforming the parole system, others look to abolish the parole system altogether.

Parole boards themselves are seen as lacking in efficient qualifications and too politicized in the appointment process. The decision for granting parole has been criticized for neglecting the due process of prisoners on a case-by-case basis. Additionally, the process for being granted a commutation has been criticized, as many prisoners have been denied a commutation for not showing the right amount of "remorse" or proving substantially that they were ready to contribute again, which are aspects that many argue are too normative and subjective.

Additionally, while the presence of parole and probation does not lead to lower incarceration rates, the absence of it de-emphasizes reform efforts on rehabilitation while simultaneously leading to a strain on taxpayer money. The conditions of parole themselves are often attacked as well, critiqued for being overwhelmingly criminogenic and perpetuating mass surveillance and a permanent state of imprisonment that prevents a smooth reentrance into society. Resources of supervision are also encouraged to be re-prioritized to those who are deemed most eligible, rather than placing digital, physical, and structural restrictions on every parolee.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) stated in 2005 that about 45% of parolees completed their sentences successfully, while 38% were returned to prison, and 11% absconded. These statistics, the DOJ says, are relatively unchanged since 1995; even so, some states (including New York) have abolished parole altogether for violent felons, and the federal government abolished it in 1984 for all offenders convicted of a federal crime, whether violent or not. Despite the decline in jurisdictions with a functioning parole system, the average annual growth of parolees was an increase of about 1.6% per year between 1995 and 2002.