In recent years, many states have amended their parole laws to enable victim impact statements to be used in the parole process. Few state laws provide clear guidelines detailing the nature and scope of victim statements, how and when victims are to be notified of their rights, and how parole authorities are to utilize such information. This paper analyzes state parole laws and the procedural and substantive inadequacies which can result from the failure of legislatures to articulate complete rules on victim statements in the parole process.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arizona Republic (1993a). Home arrest refused for rapist. Susan Leonard, Arizona Republic, August21,1993: A1.
2.
Arizona Republic (1993b). Victims' rights in Arizona still taking shape. Paul Davenport, Arizona. Republic, August22, 1993: B1.
3.
Association of Paroling Authorities International (1991). Assessing Parole: Analysis and Indicators. John C. Runda and Robert E. Wetter, principal investigators. 1991 Survey of Paroling Authorities. National Institute of Corrections Grant 91C01GHL9.
4.
BarnettD.J. (1981). Parole Decision-making and the Personalities of Police, Probation Officers, and Attorneys Acting as Decision-makers. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 2023B.
5.
BoudreauxP. (1992). Booth v. Maryland and the individual vengeance rational for criminal punishment. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 80, 177–000.
6.
BurkeP.B. (1987). Parole decisionmaking: a hard job got harder. Corrections Today, 49, 74–76.
7.
CarrollJ.S.BurkeP.A. (1990). Evaluation and prediction in expert parole decisions. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 315–332.
8.
Commentator (1989). Victim's rights and the parole hearing. Journal of Contemporary Law, 15, 71–80.
EikenberryK. (1989). The elevation of victims' rights in Washington State: constitutional status. Pepperdine Law Review, 17,19-33.
11.
EikenberryK. (1987). Victims of crime victims of justice. Wayne Law Review, 34, 29–49.
12.
ErezE. (1990). Victim participation in sentencing: rhetoric and reality. Journal of Criminal Justice, 18, 19–31.
13.
ErezE.TontodonatoP. (1992). Victim participation in sentencing and satisfaction with justice. Justice Quarterly, 9, 393–415.
14.
ErezE.TontodonatoP. (1990). The effect of victim participation in sentencing on sentence outcome. Criminology, 28, 451–474.
15.
HaganJ. (1982). Victims before the law: a study of victims' involvement in the criminal justice process. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 73, 317–000.
16.
HellersteinD. (1989). The victim impact statement: reform or reprisal?American Criminal Law Review, 27, 391-430.
17.
HoffmanM. (1983). Victim Impact Statements. Western State University Law Review, 10, 221–228.
18.
HollandT.R.HoltN.BrewerD.L. (1978). Social roles and information utilization in parole decision-making. The Journal of Social Psychology, 106, 111–120.
19.
KellyD. (1987). Victims. Wayne Law Review, 34, 69–86.
20.
KellyD. (1984). Delivering legal services to victims: an evaluation and prescription. Justice System Journal, 9, 62–86.
21.
KennardK. (1989). The victim's veto: a way to increase victim impact on criminal case dispositions. California Law Review, 77, 417–453.
22.
McBrideK.J. (1984). Factors Influencing Parole Decision-making of Correctional Psychologists. Doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University at Raleigh. Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 650B.
McLeodM. (1987). An examination of the victim's role at sentencing: results of a survey of probation administrators. Judicature, 71, 162–168.
25.
MeierhoeferB.S. (1980). The Group Shift in Parole Decision-making. Doctoral dissertation, George Washington University. Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 411 B.
26.
MurphyR. (1988). The significance of victim harm: Booth v. Maryland and the philosophy of punishment in the supreme Court. University of Chicago Law Review, 55,1303–1333.
27.
ParsonageW.BernatF.HelfgottJ. (1992). The impact of victim testimony on parole decisionmaking in Pennsylvania - a pilot study. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 6(forthcoming).
28.
RhineE.E.SmithR.W.JacksonR.W.RuppL.G. (1989). Parole: issues and prospects for the 1990s. Corrections Today, 51, 78–83.
29.
RolandD. (1989). Progress in the victim reform movement: no longer the ‘Forgotten Victim’Pepperdine Law Review, 17, 35–58.
30.
RubelH. (1986). Victim participation in sentencing proceedings. Criminal Law Quarterly, 226–250.
31.
SebbaL. (1982). The victim's role in the penal process: a theoretical orientation. American Journal of Comparative Law, 30, 217–240.
32.
SmithB.L.HuffC.R. (1992). From victim to political activist: an empirical examination of a statewide victims' rights movement. Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 201–215.
33.
SmithW.R.RhineE.E.JacksonR.W. (1989). Parole practices in the United States. Corrections Today, 51, 22–28.
34.
TalbertP. (1988). The relevance of victim impact statements to the criminal sentencing decision. UCLA Law Review, 36, 199–232.
35.
WellingS. (1989). Victims in the criminal process: a utilitarian analysis of victim participation in the charging decision. Arizona Law Review, 30, 85–117.
36.
WellingS. (1987). Victim participation in plea bargaining. Washington University Law Quarterly, 65, 301–356.
37.
WinfreeL.T.SellersC.S.BallardV.S.RobergR.R. (1990). Responding to a legislated change in correctional practices: a quasi experimental study of revocation hearings and parole board actions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 18, 195–215.
