Attorney General Steve Marshall issued a statement in support of the Board of Pardons and Paroles while voicing opposition to a parole reform bill headed to the Alabama House of Representatives on Tuesday. House Bill 57, introduced by Rep. Chris England, aims to create a Criminal Justice Policy Development Council, require the board use parole release guidelines, and revise parole proceedings.
“You cannot have a legitimate debate about parole rates without understanding that 80 percent of Alabama’s prison population are violent criminals. Since 2015, near-annual changes to our sentencing and incarceration laws have ensured that dangerous offenders are largely the only ones left behind bars. As a result, we should absolutely expect and demand that parole rates decline,” Marshall wrote.
“Every inmate in the custody of the Alabama Department of Corrections was sentenced by a judge to a term of incarceration, but today, a sentence is hardly more than a suggestion. Between good time, mandatory early release, education incentive time and the like, there is essentially nothing left to whittle away. Perhaps that is why the anti-incarceration crowd has set its sights on the Board of Pardons and Paroles—there is nobody else to “blame” for our prison rates, least of all the criminals themselves.
“Tomorrow, the Alabama House of Representatives will debate House Bill 57 that would create a new council to “oversee” the development and implementation of various guidelines and risk assessments that the Board would be mandated to use in its decision making. This bill is highly problematic in that it would undermine the Board’s independence—a hard-fought victory of the 2019 reforms—and make it more difficult for the Board to deny parole. I strongly oppose this effort.”
Rep. England responded to Marshall’s statement, arguing that Marshall has “misinterpreted” the bill. In an extensive Twitter thread, England expressed the goals of the bill. “HB57 would create the Criminal Justice Policy Development Council to update the inmate classification system; 2) create parole guidelines; 3) adopt a validated risk and needs assessment for felony offenders; and 4) provide quarterly reports to Legislature about the Council’s work,” England wrote.
England stated that the bill would require the Board to use parole release guidelines in parole decisions, provide an explanation when deviating from these guidelines, and provide written notification to the applicant of their right to appeal if the denial deviates from the guidelines.
“Once the Council’s work is complete, it will dissolve on January 1st 2025. It will not live on in perpetuity to “oversee” the parole board. The pardon and parole board will continue to exist as it does now with the same discretion the members currently have,” England explained.
England stated, “Contrary to what the AG says, it doesn’t take away the Board’s authority or independence. It just requires the use of guidelines to inject some objectivity to the process to assist the Board. And, when they deviate from the guidelines, it requires the Board to give a reason.”
Rep. England criticized Marshall’s 2019 parole reforms, arguing that the parole guidelines created are largely ignored. He also asserted that the current Chair of the parole board, Leigh Gwathney, will even change the guidelines.
“All HB57 would do is give meaning to what he supported back in 2019. It would allow the Legislature to adopt a validated risk and needs assessment to objectively assist in making the final decision. Again, not taking away independence or authority, but giving evidence based help,” England argued.
England went on to state that of the paroles granted, 66% of them went to white applicants and that white applicants are 2 times more likely to get released than Black applicants, something he sees as clear “racial disparity.”
“Also, after denying damn near every applicant, the Chair will often set the rehearing date off longer than the statute allows. To deny applicants an opportunity for rehearing for as long as possible, she will often BREAK THE LAW to get it done. Apparently that is ok these days.”
England emphasized the goal of the Bill is to create oversight that should be in place from the 2019 reforms.
“What can be done about it? Well, nothing really. The board has no real oversight. While there is a limited ability to appeal the Board’s decisions, the standard is so high that it proves ineffective to provide any way to reign in the board in the event it becomes necessary, England wrote. “HB57 will create that oversight. It will inject objectivity into the process to ensure due process is in place and that people are treated fairly. Public safety is paramount here because the guidelines are based on evidence based standards instead of subjective opinions.”
