Alabama Advocacy Groups Push for Changes to Parole Guidelines

A coalition of advocacy organizations is calling on the Alabama pardon and parole board to revise its proposed guidelines. In a letter sent earlier this month, groups including the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Alabama Judicial Initiative, and the Alabama American Civil Liberties Union addressed concerns regarding the board’s draft Rule 640-X-2, particularly the tendency to overlook its own scoring standards.

The proposed updates aim to expand the crime severity categories while keeping the existing scoring matrix but altering the score thresholds. A newly defined “very high” severity level will apply to certain offenses, like sexual crimes and felonies with personal injury, which could raise the severity score to four points.

Changes to the recommended parole grant score range have emerged, reducing the threshold for possible release to scores below 5. A “neutral” range will be established for scores between 6 and 8, though scores above 9 are generally advised to be denied. The final decision on release lies with the Board.

The letter asserts that individuals convicted of less severe crimes shouldn’t be penalized by the scoring system, and suggests that such cases should be assigned a zero-point severity score.

It emphasizes that the process is meant to evaluate an individual’s rehabilitation status. The authors argue that a minor violation should not negatively impact the chances of release, highlighting it as a statistically positive indicator.

From an institutional standpoint, the proposal seeks to change how disciplinary violations are assessed. However, the coalition advocates for a more nuanced approach, one that differentiates between actual violence and self-defense. They recommend adjusting point scales to better reflect the context of offenses, proposing, for instance, a -1 score for applicants with non-violent infractions to promote good behavior.

The letter points out that the violent atmosphere in Alabama’s correctional facilities makes it unreasonable to punish individuals simply for striving to survive.

Additionally, the revision plans to simplify how program participation and re-entry plans are evaluated. Still, the letter presses for adjustments to recognize existing programming gaps and realistic re-entry challenges.

For example, the current guidelines require applicants to finish necessary programs to score favorably. The coalition suggests a system that reflects the difficulties applicants face, such as job scarcity, instead of imposing penalties.

It notes that an applicant’s employment plan shouldn’t be deemed insufficient solely for seeking jobs in food service or landscaping if they already have employment.

The letter also critiques the way community input is integrated into scores. Proposed rules treat opposition negatively, regardless of supporting feedback. The coalition proposes a revised scoring system that would give more weight to community support, neutral input, and opposition.

Moreover, the letter proposes the introduction of a new scoring factor that would consider age, health conditions, and involvement in community service, especially for individuals aged 60 and above.

It highlights how many of these individuals are often denied parole upon reentry. The guidelines should include a specific section acknowledging their progress.

The most pointed critique focuses on the continued use of advisory rather than presumptive guidelines. The coalition argues that without a requirement for board members to justify deviations from the scoring system, the decision-making process remains inconsistent and somewhat arbitrary.

Critics also express concern about the “neutral” scoring range, arguing it creates confusion in a system defined by only two possible outcomes: release or denial.

Lastly, the letter urges for the inclusion of written victim impact statements in case files to reduce the need for families to repeatedly attend parole hearings, advocating for a more humane approach that balances victim rights with the parole process.

In closing, the letter stresses the importance of these new guidelines, asserting that they are crucial for protecting the freedom of many individuals subject to department policies and ensuring that public safety decisions are based on reliable metrics.