Discuss Supreme Court cases that have had an impact on the rights of parolees.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Answers will vary. In Menechino v. Oswald (1971), the court ruled that due process was not an issue in parole because parole was a privilege and not a right. A short time after the Menechino case, the U.S. Supreme Court directly addressed the issue of due process in parole release decision making. In Greenholtz v. Inmatesof the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex (1979), the inmates of a Nebraska prison brought a class action alleging they had been unconstitutionally denied parole by the Nebraska Board of Parole. The court emphasized that parole boards have broad discretion in their decision making, even if it is at times imperfect. The Nebraska procedure affords an opportunity to be heard, and when parole is denied it informs the inmate in what respect he or she falls short of qualifying for parole; this affords the process that is due under these circumstances. The Constitution does not require more (p. 16). The court concluded that parole release and parole revocation "are quite different" because "there is a . . . difference between losing what one has and not getting what one wants." Although the Greenholtz case did not extend due process as far as desired by the plaintiffs, it did establish that some due process protections were available in the parole-granting process. In summary, Greenholtz required reasonable notice of a parole hearing date (one month before the hearing is reasonable); an initial hearing wherein the prisoner is allowed to present the case; and, if parole is denied, written reasons must be given for denial.Prisoners seeking parole do not have the right to be represented by counsel. Although a lawyer is welcome to attend in support of the prisoner, the lawyer may not represent or talk for a prisoner during a parole hearing (Franciosi v. Michigan Parole Board, 2000). The same court one year earlier also ruled that a statement of reasons for denial of parole is not required and is not a violation of due process (Glover v. Michigan Parole Board, 1999). Even if the parole board changes its mind about its decision, no due process rights are necessary provided the prisoner has not actually been released from the institution (Jago v. Van Curen, 1981). Admitting guilt (or refusing to admit participation in a crime) can be used in some jurisdictions as a reason to deny release (In re Ecklund, 1999; Silmon v. Travis, 2000). Unlike sentencing, parole board decisions are not subject to judicial review if made in accordance with statutory guidelines (Ramahlo v. Travis, 2002).