Judiciary Urges Extension of Parole Commission

The U.S. Parole Commission, which is scheduled to cease operating next year, should either be continued or a successor agency should be created within the executive branch, a representative of the Judicial Conference of the United States told a House subcommittee today.

"The Parole Commission is a highly specialized organization with a unique mission," said Judge Richard J. Arcara (W.D. N.Y.), a member of the Judicial Conference's Criminal Law Committee. "Over the decades, it has acquired an efficiency and expertise of which we should take full advantage. In this age of fiscal responsibility, it would be a shameful waste of precious resources to do otherwise." Judge Arcara testified before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, where he represented the Judicial Conference, the policy-making body for the federal court system.

S. 1507, the Parole Commission Phaseout Act of 1995, passed the Senate late last year. The bill proposes a 5-year extension of the Parole Commission to November 1, 2002, as well as a gradual reduction in the size and budget of the commission.

The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 eliminated eligibility for parole for all federal crimes committed on or after November 1, 1987. To deal with parole-eligible offenders who committed crimes before that date, the law continued the Parole Commission until November 1, 1992. Because there was a need for ongoing parole functions, the life of the commission was extended until November 1, 1997. The Judicial Conference supports an additional 5-year extension of the commission until 2002.

Earlier this year, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and the Parole Commission produced a joint report on the feasibility of transferring the commission's functions to the federal Judiciary. The following are among the highlights of the report:

The Parole Commission function must continue. Without it, parole-eligible inmates who are entitled to parole rights would inevitably file habeas corpus petitions seeking release on the ground that their right to a determination or review of their final parole release dates had been unconstitutionally eliminated. In addition, no authority would exist to review and rescind the release dates of inmates who engage in misconduct.
The most expedient and cost-effective means of ensuring performance of necessary ongoing parole functions is a simple 5-year extension of the Parole Commission. Because of the diminishing number of parole-eligible prisoners, in the year 2002 it will be easier to predict a suitable solution to deal with them. At the end of fiscal year 1996, there will be approximately 6,700 parole-eligible prisoners. In five years the number should decrease to 2,100, many of whom will be nearing the end of their terms.
Transfer of Parole Commission functions to the federal Judiciary would be costly, inefficient and result in a dilution of already scarce judicial resources. In addition, the assumption by the courts of responsibility for parole hearings, revocation hearings, and appeals would be disruptive and would have a detrimental impact on the administration of justice. Transfer of parole release hearings to the Judiciary would increase the overall costs of performing essential Parole Commission responsibilities.

Judge Arcara stated: "The Judicial Conference, pursuant to a recommendation of the Federal Courts Study Committee, has endorsed the continuation of the commission or the creation of a successor agency within the executive branch to perform the commission's functions. Although either approach is satisfactory to the Conference, I would urge you to carefully consider the extension of the Commission for five years as proposed under S. 1507."

###