QUESTIONS FOR BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES NOMINEES

• Effective July 1, 2004, PA 04-234 combined the Board of Pardons and Board of Parole into the Board of Pardons and Paroles. The new board is part of the Department of Correction (DOC) for administrative purposes only.

• The board has independent decision-making authority to (1) grant or deny parole or special parole, (2) set parole and special parole supervision conditions, (3) rescind or revoke parole or special parole, and (4) grant releases and commute punishments including the death penalty.

• PA 04-234 ended the terms of members of the Parole Board on September 30, 2004 and starting October 1, 2004, the new board consisted of 13 members appointed by the governor with the consent of either house of the General Assembly. New members serve for the length of the governor’s term.

• The board chairman can sit on both pardons and parole release panels. He assigns seven members exclusively to parole release hearings and five to pardons hearings. Except for the chairman, no member assigned to one type of hearing can later be assigned to the other.

• The chairman or his designee and two members must conduct all parole hearings and approve or deny all parole release, revocation, or rescission recommendations from a board employee. Pardons panels consist of three members. The chairman must be on the panel for hearings on commutation of the death penalty and can be on other panels.

1. What is your philosophy toward imprisonment and granting pardons?

2. What factors and types of evidence do you view as most important? Whose testimony do you want to hear before making a decision? How much weight should be given to the testimony of a victim or a victim’s family?

3. How do you weigh the different factors when considering a pardon? How do you view the inmate's burden of proof? When, if ever, should an inmate get the benefit of the doubt?

4. What influence does publicity or other pressures have on your decision?

5. Are there any circumstances under which you would find it necessary to recuse or disqualify yourself from a pardon decision?

6. The board can grant a pardon before any sentence is served. How long should someone serve before the board considers a pardon? Are there any cases in which a pardon should be granted before any portion of a sentence has been served?

7. Under what circumstances do you think conditional pardons are appropriate?

8. Do you think that people convicted of violent crimes against children or of sexual assault should be ineligible for pardon?

9. Under what circumstances, if any, do you think the board should commute a death sentence? What factors might affect your decision?

10. A court challenge based on Michael Ross’ death sentence but not brought by him, raised issues about the board’s process to commute death sentences. Should the board consider commuting a death sentence even if the inmate does not apply for a commutation? Should others be allowed to apply on the inmate’s behalf?

11. PA 04-234 required the board chairman, in consultation with the executive director, to adopt regulations to establish an administrative pardons process that allows people convicted of certain crimes to receive a pardon without a hearing, unless a victim requests one. This applies in limited circumstances. What do you think of this process? How is it working? It applies to a limited class of people, should it apply to more or fewer people?

12. PA 04-234 also required the board to issue a written statement when it rejects a pardons application. What do you think about this requirement?

13. What do you think about the other recent changes to the board and the pardons process?

1. What is your philosophy toward granting parole? In your view, what are the purposes of imprisonment and parole?

2. What would you consider to be the most important factors when deciding whether or not to grant parole? How much consideration should be given to the statements of a victim or a victim’s family? When should an inmate be given the benefit of the doubt?

3. Are there any circumstances under which you would find it necessary to disqualify yourself from a parole decision?

4. How do you predict a prisoner’s potential for future dangerous behavior? Should this be part of a parole decision?

5. To what extent should the board impose conditions on a parolee’s place of residence, employment, substance abuse treatment, or social activities?

6. How could a prisoner who is returned to prison for violating parole conditions prove to the panel that he will not break parole rules again?

a. The act made DOC responsible for supervising parolees. How has this change affected the board and the parole process? Do you feel it was an appropriate change?

b. The act requires a parole hearing to determine the suitability for parole release of inmates once they reach a specific point in their sentence beyond their parole eligibility date. The board must make certain findings and state specific reasons why the person and the public would not benefit from the person’s parole while transitioning to the community if it requires continued confinement. How has this change affected the board’s workload? What affect has this change had on parole decisions?

c. The act allows paroled inmates to move to alternate facilities within 18 months of their parole release date. It also authorizes compassionate parole release under certain circumstances. How do you feel about these changes and how have they been implemented?

d. The act requires the board, working with various other officials and agencies, to develop a parole orientation program, an incremental sanctions system for parole violations, and a plan to reduce by at least 20% the number of incarcerations due to technical violations of the conditions of parole. How do you feel about these initiatives and how have they been implemented? Do you think they will help parolees remain out of prison?

e. The act requires the board, Judicial Branch, DOC, and the departments of Mental Health and Addiction Services, Social Services, and Labor to develop a comprehensive reentry strategy. How has this been implemented? Do you think it will help parolees remain out of prison? Has it had any effect yet?


April 14, 2005		2005-R-0342
QUESTIONS FOR BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES NOMINEES

By: Christopher Reinhart, Senior Attorney