DOES THE ALABAMA BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES MAKE MISTAKES?​

Even the best make mistakes, parole boards included. 

As of the date of this article, the Alabama Bureau of Pardons and Paroles does not provide any way for inmates and/or counsel to challenge the Bureau’s actions, no matter how obvious or egregious the mistake. A reconsideration or special review mechanism is fundamentally necessary to even speak of justice. By allowing supplimentation, simple error correction and opportunities to fix any mistakes made by the Bureau or Department of Corrections, several improvements will follow.

The first of which is the reservation of prison space for the most serious offenders (Alabama DOC was recently recorded at 168% over-capacity). Thus, to carry out their legally mandated duties, the ABPP needs a mechanism to check their work and catch any inmates that were improperly denied parole or unjustly ruled against by the board on any decision within its authority. This will result in Alabama prison space being used as mandated; for those who pose the greatest risk to public safety.

The second host of reasons why ABPP needs a self-check mechanism revolve around the interests of justice and common sense. To keep things brief, we’ve limited the concepts to bullets:

• The inmate/parolee’s Conditional Liberty is at stake
• Price of incarceration v. parole supervision on Alabama taxpayers.
• Entrusting more chances for inmates to demonstrate their growth and development while incarcerated in ADOC.
• Encourages positive and trustworthy relationship between inmates and the board, thereby incentivizing good institutional behavior and programming.
• To maintain and improve the ABPP’s reputation as a respectable entity.

These states offer examples of what a Special Review/ Parole Reconsideration mechanism could look like in Alabama:

TEXAS 

Designee shall refer to the Special Review Panel only those Special Review requests based on one of the following:

A written request on behalf of an offender is received which cites information not previously available to the parole panel. Information not previously available shall mean only:

1. Responses from trial officials or victims;
2. A change in an offender’s sentence and judgment; or
3. An allegation that the parole panel has committed an error of law or Board Rule.
4. A parole panel denied release to parole or mandatory supervision and at least one of the members who voted with the majority on that panel desires to have the decision reconsidered prior to the next parole or mandatory supervision review date. The requesting panel member shall indicate the specific reason for the request in writing.

Designee shall refer to the Original Panel only those Special Review requests for which there was an administrative file processing error or erroneous information

CALIFORNIA

Your appeal must specify one or more of the following reasons:

(a) That the decision was not supported by the reasons or facts as stated.
(b) That the decision was based on erroneous information and the actual facts justify a different decision.
(c) That the hearing panel did not follow correct procedure in deciding the case, and a different decision would have resulted if the error had not occurred.
(d) There was significant relevant information in existence but not known to the parole hearing panel at the time of the hearing.
(e) The special conditions of parole are unfair and cannot be obeyed under the circumstances, and should be amended by the Parole Board Members.

NEW YORK

The following questions may be raised on appeal from a minimum period of imprisonment or release proceeding:

1. Did the proceeding and/or determination violate lawful procedure, or was it affected by an error of law, was it arbitrary and capricious, or was it otherwise unlawful?
2. Did the Board member or members making the determination rely on erroneous information as shown in the record of the proceeding, or was relevant information not available for consideration?
3. Was the determination excessive?

The questions below may be raised on appeal from a parole rescission or final revocation determination, and subject to the limitation that evidentiary rulings will be considered only if a timely objection was made at the hearing:

1. Was the determination supported by a preponderance of the evidence?
2. Questions 1 through 3 above.

TENNESSEE

 Appellate reviews may be granted for any of the following reasons:

• Significant new information that was not available at the time of the hearing;
• Misconduct by the hearings official;
• Significant procedural error(s) by the hearings official.

KENTUCKY

Reconsideration review shall be at the discretion of the Board, and shall not be available except for the following reasons:

1. 1. If there is an allegation of misconduct by a Board member that is substantiated by the record;
   2. If there is a significant procedural error by a Board member; or
   3. If there is significant new evidence that was not available when the hearing was conducted. A request based on the availability of new evidence or information shall be accompanied by adequate documentation.
2. A request based on an allegation of misconduct or significant procedural error shall clearly indicate the specific misconduct or procedural error being alleged.