PUBLIC FORUM United States Parole Commission 5550 Friendship Boulevard Chevy Chase, MD 20815

October 4, 2003

Shown below is a list of questions that arose during the Commission's public forum held on October 4, 2003. These public forums are held twice each year to provide the citizens of the District of Columbia the chance to ask questions or raise concerns about the policies of the Commission. The questions were addressed by a panel of speakers, which consisted of representatives from the United States Parole Commission, the Court Services and Offenders Supervision Agency, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. This summary includes only those questions directed at the Commission.

Question: Why does the Parole Commission not hear each inmate denied parole every year? Why does the Commission wait up to three years before reviewing a case?

Answer: Following a parole hearing, the Commission may set an effective parole date within nine months of the date of the hearing, set a presumptive parole date not more than three years from the date of the hearing, or schedule a reconsideration hearing no more then three years from the month of the hearing. The purpose of the policy is to give the inmate a degree of certainty as to the eventual release date. Hearing each case every year created for many inmates an unrealistic expectation of parole and interfered with release planning. Inmates who are scheduled for a three-year reconsideration hearing might view this policy as more onerous, but inmates who receive a parole date, even if two or three years in the future, are much better able to prepare for release.

Question: Why does only one hearing examiner conduct the parole hearing?

Answer: One examiner conducts the hearing, but the recommendation is reviewed by at least one additional examiner who must concur before the recommendation is forwarded to the Parole Commissioners for a decision. Using one examiner to conduct the hearing results in significant savings in travel costs. It also allows the Commission to use a small number of its most experienced examiners to review every recommendation. This would not be possible if these examiners needed to travel and participate in-person at the hearings.

Question: Why is the policy for awarding street time different for federal parolees and parolees sentenced out of the District of Columbia Superior Court?

Answer: District of Columbia law requires that the Parole Commission deny credit for street time for a D.C. Code parolee who has his parole revoked for any type of violation. The law governing parole revocation for U.S. Code parolees requires the denial of street time only in limited circumstances, e.g., when the parolee has been convicted of a new crime punishable by imprisonment. Unless the D.C. law is changed by the City Council, the Commission is not allowed to credit street time for a D.C. parolee whose release has been revoked. This was also discussed in response to a question raised during the Public Forum on April 5, 2003.

Question: How can the Parole Commission deny parole based on the nature of the offense, which is out of the control of the inmate and cannot be changed?

Answer: The decision to parole is based on a determination of the probability that a parole applicant will remain at liberty without violating the law. This determination is based on the salient factor score used to predict recidivism in conjunction with the level of violence shown by the nature and circumstances of the current offense and prior convictions. An inmate cannot change the nature of the current offense or the prior record, but these are the best predictors of future recidivism, including the probability of future violence. In order to protect the public and responsibly carry out the statutory mission of the Commission, it is necessary for the Commission use the best information at its disposal, which includes the extensiveness of the prior record and the history of violence in the current and past offenses. This was also discussed in response to a question raised during the Public Forum on April 5, 2003.

Question: Why are District of Columbia inmates not allowed to appeal a parole decision?

Answer: For federal inmates, the parole decision is generally made by a single Commissioner, and the inmate is given the opportunity to appeal the decision to another Commissioner. In taking over responsibility for District of Columbia inmates, the Commission adopted as much as possible the procedures developed by the previous District of Columbia Parole Board, which required that the decision be made by two Board Members without the possibility of appeal. This is the procedure currently in place with the Parole Commission, although consideration is being given to treating federal and District of Columbia inmates the same.

Question: Why is the recommendation of the hearing examiner sometimes overturned?

Answer: The first examiner conducts an in-person hearing to give the parole applicant every opportunity to point out any deficiencies in the factual record and to present any facts in mitigation of the offense or concerning personal history. The second examiner reviews the case after the hearing to ensure that all relevant information is known, that the parole guidelines are calculated correctly, and that the recommendation reflects Commission policy. Most of the time, the recommendation of the first examiner is not changed. In the cases where the recommendation is changed (13% of the cases in 2002), the change may be due to new information, a difference of opinion over an interpretation of the facts, a difference of judgment as to the proper recommendation, or other factors. It should be kept in mind that the examiner panel only makes a recommendation and that the final decision rests solely with the Parole Commissioners. However, it is relatively rare that the Commissioners choose to depart from the panel recommendations. This was also discussed in response to a question raised during the Public Forum on April 5, 2003.

Question: Why is there no provision for early termination of parole?

Answer: District of Columbia law does not give the Commission the authority to terminate supervision and the offender's sentence before the full-term expiration date. The Commission, however, may release a parolee from active supervision before this date. This was also discussed in response to a question raised during the Public Forum on April 5, 2003.

Question: How does one get permission to discuss the case of a loved one in prison with the Parole Commission?

Answer: If an individual wishes to discuss the particulars of a case considered by the Commission (other than one's own case), the individual must first get the release of information authorization signed by the inmate and notarized in the institution. This was also discussed in response to a question raised during the Public Forum on September 11, 2002.

Question: Why are there different sets of guidelines for different offenders and which guidelines apply to a particular case?

Answer: For an inmate whose initial hearing was held prior to August 5, 1998, the Commission continues to use the guidelines of the former District of Columbia Board of Parole. For hearings held after that date, the Commission uses the guidelines contained in the United States Parole Commission Rules and Procedures Manual which can be found on the Commission's website (www.USDOJ.GOV/USPC). The new guidelines were adopted in 1998 because decisions rendered by the previous District of Columbia Board of Parole frequently departed above the old guidelines due to factors that indicated an increased risk of violent recidivism. Therefore, the Commission promulgated new guidelines that used the basic format of the D.C. Board of Parole guidelines, but included in the guidelines factors on the risk of violent recidivism. The Commission's 1998 guidelines are intended to better reflect actual practice and to give a more realistic understanding of the parole process.

Question: If a parolee receives a new sentence on parole, why does the Parole Commission hold the warrant as a detainer? Why doesn't the Parole Commission run the parole revocation time concurrently with (at the same time as) any new sentences?

Answer: The Commission typically holds the warrant as a detainer until time in custody on any new sentence is complete because of the difficulty in predicting precisely when the new sentence will end. For guideline purposes, it is difficult if not impossible to accurately calculate the time in custody if the warrant is executed prior to the completion of a new term of imprisonment. However, any time served in custody on a charge that forms any part of the basis for revoking parole will be credited towards time in custody for guideline purposes.

Question: Does the Parole Commission deny parole because of politics or outside influence?

Answer: The Commission is an independent agency that makes it decisions based solely on its own judgment. Outside influence, political or otherwise, plays no role in the determination to parole an inmate. This was also discussed in response to a question raised during the Public Forum on April 5, 2003.

Question: What is the role of the family in helping an inmate make parole and in assisting an inmate releasing from an institution?

Answer: First, family members should bring to the Commission's attention any mitigating circumstances relative to the offense or violation behavior. This will assist the Commission in its decision to grant or deny parole. Second, family members should work with the Bureau of Prisons and the Court Services and Offender supervision Agency in developing a release plan. This can help to avoid any retardation of parole for purposes of completing the release plan.

Question: Does the Parole Commission read written information submitted in support of parole for a particular inmate?

Answer: All written information given the Commission, positive as well as negative, is carefully considered by the Commission during the decision-making process. The Commission strongly encourages interested parties to submit information that can help guide the Commission in its deliberations. Not every submission necessarily requires official action or a written response, but all submissions to the Commission are read and considered. This was also discussed in response to a question raised during the Public Forum on April 5, 2003.

Any comments concerning this Forum or suggestions for future Forums should be directed to James Beck at the U. S. Parole Commission (JAMES.BECK@USDOJ.GOV).