skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 94252 Find in a Library
Title: Violations of the Double Jeopardy Prohibition Under the Federal Parole Release System
Journal: Boston University Law Review  Volume:63  Issue:3  Dated:(1983)  Pages:673-716
Author(s): H A Harrison
Date Published: 1983
Page Count: 44
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This note examines whether the United States Parole Commission's use of dismissed and acquitted offense in fixing the Offense Severity index violates principles of double jeopardy. The note concludes that the Commission's use of these unconvicted offenses may violate the double jeopardy clause.
Abstract: The Commission utilizes guidelines governing the calculations of an inmate's offense severity and salient factor ratings, and providing a table using these ratings to compute the time each offender must serve before release. The Commission bases 80 percent of its parole release dates on these guidelines. The Commission may consider additional factors and circumstances of the offender's behavior in the incident from which the offense stems. The courts have thus far rejected arguments that, as the inmate is implicitly or explicitly adjudged innocent of these incidents at trial, they should not be held as admissible in parole calculations. One line of reasoning courts advance in rejecting these arguments is that the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy applies only to judicial criminal proceedings. Another basis for rejecting double jeopardy claims involving parole is that neither the denial or revocation of parole, nor the deprivation of good time credits constitutes punishment for purposes of the double jeopardy clause. The use of acquitted and dismissed charges to increase the length of an inmate's incarceration does constitute punishment as obviously as it constitutes a second judgement made on the acts in question. Many parole decisions potentially involve punishment after acquittal and offend the values that have been protected by the double jeopardy clause since its inclusion into constitutional law. An appendix presents the guidelines for decisionmaking in parole considerations. A total of 263 notes are included.
Index Term(s): Federal parole guidelines; Penalty severity rating; Right against double jeopardy
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.