Four Alabama advocacy organizations joined forces to demand changes to the guidelines that serve as guides for whether to grant parole requests.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, Alabama Arise, Alabama Justice Initiative and ACLU of Alabama drafted the letter as part of a public comment session on proposed regulation 640-X-A-2 repealing and replacing the current parole guidelines.
The first suggested change is to ensure that where the severity of the original offense is “low” that it does not count as a point against the individual.
“First, because the aim of this process is to assess fitness for release, assessing a point against offenders whose offenses were of low severity cuts directly against the purpose of the parole process,” the organizations wrote. “The parole hearing application process is not a forum to relitigate the underlying offense – the sentence the applicant is currently serving. The process is meant to assess and determine the individual’s ‘status’ of rehabilitation. That said, ‘Low’ offense severity has been shown to be a statistically significant positive indicator of fitness for release and accordingly should not result in a negative consequence for petitioners.
“Second, the increased point assessments across all severity classifications in addition to the new ‘Very high’ category serve only to tilt the process against release. The offense categories have no bearing on current public safety concerns at all and serve only to retry the cases for which petitioners are serving sentences. We ask you not to make this portion of the parole process less functional by increasing the points assessments, including by assessing points against low-severity petitioners.”
The next requested change deals with disciplinary infractions, with the groups suggesting particularly that points only be counted against instigators of prison violence, not everyone involved.
“The wording change also would reduce the likelihood, as unfortunately can happen now, of petitioners facing lower likelihood of parole when the applicant is neither the aggressor nor instigator of a reported incident,” the groups wrote. “Given the undisputedly violent conditions inside Alabama’s correctional facilities, it would be unreasonable and cruel to house individuals in these settings and then punish them for defending themselves by assessing points for the mere act of survival. Particularly in a state that boasts one of the broadest ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws in the country, it makes no sense to punish people who are forced to defend themselves because the State failed to protect them. Being the victim of carceral violence does not make a person a worse candidate for release, and petitioners should not have points assessed against them when they are attacked.”
In addition to a few other suggested tweaks to current guidelines, the groups suggest adding certain point deductions including for parole-seekers who have held a work release position for more than six months.
“A category should be added to provide a 1-point benefit to petitioners who hold work release jobs for more than six continuous months,” the groups wrote. “As alluded to above, every day, hundreds of individuals under Department of Corrections custody are deemed ‘safe’ enough to be released into communities across the state to work as linemen, do landscape maintenance, and take our drive-through orders. Many of these same individuals are then summarily denied when they come up for parole. The guidelines form should have a designated section that speaks to, and properly acknowledges, their progress in reintegrating into the broader community.”
Age should also be taken into account, the organization argued, with a 1 point deduction for individuals over 60, 2 points if over the age of 70 and 3 points if over the age of 80. A one-point deduction should also be granted to individuals suffering from debilitating health conditions, they said.
The groups also argue for more accountability for the board’s decisions.
“The release guidelines should be presumptive, not advisory,” they wrote. “During the trial and sentencing phases, all parties are aware of what factors are determinative and possess the opportunity for input, and the judge still retains the ability to deviate if the circumstances warrant – with an articulated justification. Likewise, if this change were implemented, the Board could still choose to deviate from the set guidelines by explaining the factors that led to its decision. This would provide overdue clarity to the process for all stakeholders and remove the appearance of arbitrariness and capriciousness.”
The proposed scoring would encourage release for applicants who score in the 0-5 range, denial for applicants who score 9 or more points, and remain neutral for applicants who score within the 6-8 range. The advocacy groups argue that 0-8 should all lead toward encouraging release.
“It is inappropriate for the guidelines to have a neutrality option when the only two results available to petitioners are release or denial. Moreover, given the Board’s recent actions and posture, it is unacceptably likely that voting members will view neutrality as a blanket justification for denial of release. The draft regulation’s increase in points assessed for certain circumstances, combined with a Board that has failed to follow its own procedures, demonstrate that the proposed regulation as drafted would risk becoming political cover for the Board to act just as it has in recent history, against the interests of justice, economy, and accountability. These suggested changes to the rule would mitigate these risks.”
