| Abstract: | The literature in Criminal Justice is replete with commentary on both the virtues and injustices associated with adult parole board decision-making. There has been far less attention paid to juvenile parole boards in part because so few of them exist. Institutional release decisions in most states still remain the purview of juvenile institutional staff members. This paper examines parole Authority decision-making in a citizen-dominated state juvenile parole board. The paper focuses on the conduct of hearings, dispositional guidelines, criteria used by board members in decision-making and the advocacy role of parole officers and institutional staff. The influence of deinstitutionalization and least restrictive policies on parole Authority decision making is also discussed. During recent years, the literature in criminal justice has become replete with commentary on the virtues and injustices associated with parole board decision-making. Consequently, many questions have been raised about disparate sentences, the criteria used by parole boards in making decisions, unstructured discretion, and the pressing need for guidelines and statistically accurate parole prediction instruments. The intent of this paper is to examine parole decision-making in a state juvenile parole board where individualized treatment and rehabilitation have been long standing goals. The paper focuses upon the criteria used by board members in decision-making, the conduct of hearings, the guideline system used to determine a recommended length of confinement and the advocacy role of parole officers and institutional staff. The influence of deinstitutionalization and least restrictive policies on parole board decision-making is also discussed. The author is presently completing the second year of a two-year appointment as a member of the Parole Authority under discussion. Since December, 1983, the author has continuously observed and participated in approximately 300 individual parole hearings over thirty-seven hearing days. |
