CRITICS OF THE ENGLISH PAROLE SYSTEM COMPLAIN THAT TOO FEW PRISONERS ARE PAROLED AND THAT THE PERIOD OF PAROLE IS TOO SHORT, THAT THERE IS TOO MUCH DELAY IN PROCESSING APPLICATIONS, THAT THE PAROLE BOARD DOES NOT SUPPLY PRISONERS WITH REASONS FOR REFUSING APPLICATIONS, AND THAT PRISONERS SEEKING PAROLE DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO A HEARING, TO BE REPRESENTED, AND TO APPEAL. IN COMPARISON WITH THE UNITED STATES, RELATIVELY FEW ENGLISH PRISONERS RECEIVE ONLY A SMALL PROPORTION OF THE PAROLE FOR WHICH THEY ARE POTENTIALLY ELIGIBLE. THE CONTROLLING EFFECTS OF THE STAUTE THAT ESTABLISHED THE ENGLISH PAROLE SYSTEM, TOGETHER WITH OTHER FACTORS, MAKE IT UNLIKELY THAT THE PROPORTION OF PRISONERS TO WHOM PAROLE IS GRANTED WILL INCREASE SUBSTANTIALLY. ONE APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM MAY BE TO BYPASS THE PAROLE SYSTEM BY GIVING TRIAL COURTS THE POWER TO DESIGNATE HOW MUCH OF A SENTENCE IS TO BE SUSPENDED IF THE OFFENDER COMMITS NO FURTHER OFFENSE. ENGLAND'S THREE-TIER PAROLE DECISIONMAKING APPARATUS MAKES THE PROBLEM OF DELAY INSOLUBLE WITHOUT RADICAL TRANSFORMATION OF THE SYSTEM. THE PAROLE BOARD HAS RECOGNIZED THE PROBLEM OF FAILING TO SUPPLY PRISONERS WITH REASONS FOR REFUSING PAROLE BUT HAS ALSO NOTED THE DIFFICULTIES INVOLVED IN COMMUNICATING REASONS FOR DENIAL TO PRISONERS. ONLY FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES IN THE PAROLE DECISIONMAKING PROCESS WOULD MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO GRANT THE POTENTIAL PAROLEE THE RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION. HOWEVER, MARGINAL IMPROVEMENTS MIGHT BE MADE WITH REGARD TO THE PRISONER'S RIGHT TO A HEARING. CONCEDING A RIGHT TO APPEAL AGAINST A PAROLE DECISION MUST BE CONSIDERED IN RELATION TO THE ISSUE OF INFORMING PRISONERS OF THE REASONS FOR DENIAL OF PAROLE. (LKM)