Based on U.S. Supreme Court decisions recognizing adolescence, we examined the likelihood of parole in one state for a population of candidates whose ages ranged from 14 to 21 at time of offense. Logistic regressions tested age on release, controlling for offense, adolescence-related, and rehabilitative variables. Contrary to expectations, a parole candidate’s age at time of offense is not associated with release nor did age interact with culpability and rehabilitation measures. Instead, victim and prosecutorial opposition is related to a lower likelihood of release where the opposition effect is greater for those 18 years and older at time of offense. These findings reiterate the need for comparative research on parole decision-making as it may vary by time and place.
AviramH. (2020). Yesterday’s monsters: The Manson family cases and the illusion of parole. University of California Press.
4.
BabyakM. A. (2004). What you see may not Be what you get: A brief, nontechnical introduction to overfitting in regression-type models. Psychosomatic Medicine, 66(3), 411–421.
5.
BallD. W. (2011). Normative elements of parole risk. Stanford Law & Policy Review, 22(2), 395–412.
6.
BanisterP. A.HeskinK. J.BoltonN.SmithF. V. (1974). A study of variables related to the selection of long-term prisoners for parole. The British Journal of Criminology, 14(4), 359–368.
7.
BellK. (2019). A stone of hope: Legal and empirical analysis of California juvenile lifer parole decisions. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 54, 455–552.
8.
BernhardtD.MongrainS.RobertsJ. (2012). Rehabilitated or not: An informational theory of parole decisions. The Journal of Law Economics and Organization, 28(2), 186–210.
9.
BierschbachR. A. (2012). Proportionality and parole. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 160, 1745–1788.
10.
BooneB. H. (2015). Treating adults like children: Resentencing adult juvenile lifers afterMiller v. Alabama. Minnesota Law Review, 99, 1159–1194.
11.
CaldwellB. (2016). Creating meaningful opportunities for release: Graham, Miller and California’s youth offender parole hearings. N.Y.U Review of Law and Social Change, 40, 245–304.
12.
CaplanJ. M. (2007). What factors affect parole: A review of empirical research. Federal Probation, 71(1), 16–19.
13.
CaplanJ. M. (2010). Parole release decisions: Impact of victim input on a representative sample of inmates. Criminal Justice Journal, 38, 291–300.
14.
CarrollJ. S.BurkeP. A. (1990). Evaluation and prediction in expert parole decisions. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17(3), 315–332.
15.
CohenL. (2014). Freedom’s road: Youth, parole, and the promise of Miller v. Alabama and Graham v. Florida. Cardozo Law Review, 35, 1031–1089.
16.
ConleyJ. A.ZimmermanS. W. E. (1982). Decision-making by a part-time parole board: An observational and empirical study. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 9(4), 396–431.
17.
ConnorD. P. (2016). How to get out of prison: Views from Parole Board members. Corrections: Policy, Practice and Research, 1(2), 107–126.
18.
DrinanC. H. (2017). The War on kids: How American juvenile justice lost its way. Oxford University Press.
19.
FeldB. C. (2007). Competence and culpability: Delinquents in juvenile courts, youths in criminal courts. Minnesota Law Review, 102, 473–576.
20.
FeldB. C. (2013). The youth discount: Old enough to do the crime; too young to do the time. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 11, 107–148.
21.
FeldB. C. (2017). The evolution of the juvenile court: Race, politics and the criminalizing of juvenile justice. NYU Press.
22.
FriedmanD. R.RobinsonJ. M. (2014). Rebutting the presumption: An empirical analysis of parole deferrals under Marsy’s law. Stanford Law Review, 66, 173–215.
23.
GlynnG.VilaI. (2012). What states should do to provide a meaningful opportunity for review and release: Recognize human worth and potential. St. Thomas Law Review, 24, 310–349.
24.
Graham v Florida, 560 U.S. 48. (2010).
25.
HarringtonA. (2020). The constitutionalization of parole: Fulfilling the promise of meaningful review. Cornell Law Review, 106, 1173–1254. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3580225
26.
HierA. P. (1973). Curbing abuse in the decision to grant or deny parole. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 8(2), 419–468.
27.
HoestereyA. R. (2017). Confusion in Montgomery’s wake: State responses, the mandates of Montgomery, and why a complete categorical Ban on life without parole for juveniles Is the only constitutional option. The Fordham Urban Law Journal, 45, 149–199.
28.
HowardM. M. (2017). Unusually cruel: Prisons, punishment and the real American exceptionalism. Oxford University Press.
29.
HuebnerB.BynumT. (2006). An analysis of parole decision-making using a sample of Sex offenders: A focal concerns perspective. Criminology, 44(4), 961–991.
30.
HuebnerB. M.BynumT. S. (2008). The role of race and ethnicity in parole decisions. Criminology, 46(4), 907–938.
KinnevyS.CaplanJ. M. (2008). Findings from the AIPI international survey of releasing authorities. Center for Research on Youth and Social Policy, University of Pennsylvania.
33.
LedfordH. (2018). The shifting boundaries of adolescence: Researchers struggle to define the span of time between child and adult. Nature, 554, 429–431.
34.
LevickM. L.SchwartzR. G. (2013). Practical implications of Miller v. Jackson: Obtaining relief in court and before the parole board. Law & Inequality, 31, 369–409.
35.
MarshallM. (2019). Miller v. Alabama and the problem of prediction. Columbia Law Review, 119(6), 1633–1669.
36.
Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460. (2012).
37.
MillsJ. R.DornA. M.HritzA. C. (2016). Juvenile life without parole in law and practice: Chronicling the rapid change underway. American University Law, reiew,65, 535–605.
38.
Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718. (2016).
39.
MorganK. D.SmithB. (2005). Parole release decisions revisited: An analysis of parole release decisions for violent inmates in a southeastern state. Criminal Justice Journal, 33(3), 277–287.
ParsonageW. H.BernatF. P.HelfgottJ. (1992). Victim impact testimony and Pennsylvania’s parole decision making process: A pilot study. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 6(3), 187–206.
42.
PetersiliaJ. (2007). Employ behavioral contracting for “Earned Discharge” parole. Criminology & Public Policy, 6(4), 807–814.
43.
PiqueroA. R.FarringtonD. P.BlumsteinA. (2003). The criminal career paradigm. Crime and Justice, 30, 359–506.
44.
ProctorJ. L. (1999). The “New Parole”: An analysis of parole board decision making As a function of eligibility. Journal of Crime and Justice, 22(2), 193–217.
ReitzK. R.RhineE. E. (2020). Parole release and supervision: Critical drivers of American prison policy. Annual Review of Criminology, 3(1), 281–298.
47.
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551. (2005).
48.
RovnerJ. (2014). Slow to act: State responses to 2012 court mandate on life without parole. The Sentencing Project.
49.
RovnerJ. (2017). Juvenile life without parole: An overview. The Sentencing Project.
50.
RuhlandE. L.RhineE. E.RobeyJ. P.MitchellK. L. (2017). The continuing leverage of release authorities: Findings from a national survey. Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, University of Minnesota.
51.
RussellS. F. (2014). Review for release: Juvenile offenders, state parole practices, and the Eighth amendment. Indiana Law Journal, 89, 373–440.
52.
RussellS. F. (2016). The role of crime at juvenile parole hearings: A response to Beth Caldwell’s creating meaningful opportunities for release. The Harbinger, 41, 227–232.
53.
ScottE. S.SteinbergL. (2008). Rethinking juvenile justice. Harvard University Press.
54.
SmithB. L.WatkinsE.MorganK. (1997). The effect of victim participation on parole decisions: Results from a Southeastern state. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 8(1), 57–74.
55.
SteinbergL. (2014). Age of opportunity: Lessons from the new science of adolescence. Eamon Dolan/Mariner Books.
56.
SuleimanA. B.DahlR. E. (2017). Leveraging neuroscience to inform adolescent health: The need for an innovative transdisciplinary developmental science of adolescence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 60(3), 240–248.
57.
Thompson v Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815. (1988).
58.
VîlcicăE. R. (2018). Revisiting parole decision making: Testing for the punitive hypothesis in a large U.S. Jurisdiction. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(5), 1357–1383.
59.
YeldermanL. A.Estrada-ReynoldsV.LawrenceT. I. (2021). Release or denial: Evaluating the roles of emotion and risk in parole decisions. Psychological Reports. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941211007929
60.
YoungK. M.MukamalD. A.Favre-BulleT. (2016). Predicting parole grants: An analysis of suitability hearings for California’s lifer inmates. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 28(4), 268–277.
