You asked for background information on how parole was handled in the 1980's.

SUMMARY

Until July 1981, parole played a major role in our criminal justice system because Connecticut used an indeterminate sentencing model. Under an indeterminate sentence, a convicted offender received a sentence with a minimum and maximum term and was eligible for parole release after completing the minimum term less any “good time” credits earned while in prison. Thus, the parole board played a major role in how long an offender would actually spend in prison. According to a Program Review and Investigation Committee staff report, since most inmates were paroled at their first eligibility date, the minimum term minus “good time” became the de facto sentence length.

The General Assembly eliminated indeterminate sentencing effective July 1, 1981 and replaced it with a determinate sentencing system. Judges retained sentencing discretion to consider a range of penalties within the statutorily defined limits for each class of offense. Under determinate sentencing, the court imposed a fixed term of imprisonment, for example 10 years, instead of an indeterminate term of for example, 10 to 20 years.

When the General Assembly adopted determinate sentencing it also abolished discretionary parole release for those sentenced under this new determinate sentencing system. But it did not abolish the parole board. The parole board kept its discretionary release authority for offenders serving indeterminate sentences—those convicted and sentenced to crimes committed before July 1981.

To deal with prison overcrowding, the legislature, in 1981, created an early release program, called supervised home release (SHR). This program in essence shifted discretionary release authority from the parole board to the Department of Corrections (DOC). The SHR program quickly became a mechanism for dealing with prison overcrowding. Because of the lack of beds, most sentenced inmates served only about 10 % of their court-imposed sentences before being released on SHR.

The General Assembly enacted legislation in 1990 to phase out the SHR program and reestablished parole for all inmates sentenced to more than two years. It gave the parole board discretionary release jurisdiction over determinate sentences and once again parole became the primary mechanism for releasing inmates from prison into the community.

During the 1990s, the legislature made additional changes to the sentencing laws that affected parole. For example it enacted legislation that requires offenders convicted of a crime that involved the use, attempted use, or threatened use of violence to be ineligible for parole until they served at least 85% of their sentence in prison.

The information in this report was taken directly from a 2000 Program Review and Investigation Committee report (PRI) on prison overcrowding entitled Factors Impacting Prison Overcrowding (http://cgalites/pri/archives/2000fireport.htm). (Also see a PRI 1993 Report entitled Board Parole and Parole Services, http://cgalites/pri/PRIweb/Pre98Studies/Board%20of%20Parole%20and%20Parole%20Services%20(January%201993).pdf, and a PRI report entitled Mandatory Minimum Sentences December 2005 http://cgalites/2005/pridata/Studies/Mandatory_Minimum_Sentences_Final_Report.htm).

We have enclosed a copy of the 2000 PRI prison overcrowding report. This report provides a more detailed explanation of how the state dealt with criminal justice issues including sentencing, parole, and other early release programs during the 1980s and 1990s.

ELIMINATION OF INDETERMINATE SENTENCING AND PAROLE

By the late 1970s, some legislators and other policy makers in Connecticut started to view indeterminate sentencing as unfair and ineffective. In 1979, the General Assembly established a Sentencing Commission to recommend sentencing policies and practices, including reviewing the option of developing sentencing guidelines.

Based on the Sentencing Commission's recommendations, the General Assembly enacted legislation that eliminated indeterminate sentencing effective July 1, 1981 and replaced it with a determinate sentencing system. Judges retained sentencing discretion to consider a range of penalties within the statutorily defined limits for

each class of offense. Under determinate sentencing, the court imposed a fixed term of imprisonment, for example 10 years, instead of an indeterminate term, for example, 10 to 20 years.

When the General Assembly adopted determinate sentencing it also abolished discretionary parole release for those sentenced under this new determinate sentencing system. But it did not abolish the parole board. The parole board kept its discretionary release authority for offenders serving indeterminate sentences—those convicted and sentenced for crimes committed before July 1981.

SENTENCING REFORMS AND PRISON OVERCROWDING

The 1981 sentencing reform also reduced the amount of “good time” credits that could be earned for sentences over five years, which according to PRI, thereby increased the time served by about 20%. “Good time” was reduced from 15 days to 12 days per month of the sentence. The General Assembly also began establishing mandatory minimum sentences for certain offenses and enacted the first in a series of persistent offender provisions, which allowed enhanced penalties for repeat offenses of serious crimes.

Apparently these reforms helped to produce a prison overcrowding problem. The legislature enacted an emergency release provision in 1982 that authorized the DOC to petition the court for the release of accused and sentenced inmates to relieve overcrowding. While DOC petitioned the court for the release of 200 inmates, only one inmate was discharged under the new program.

In 1984, the legislature amended the emergency release provision to allow DOC to declare an overcrowding emergency when the incarcerated population exceeded 110% of capacity for 30 consecutive days. It could then systematically release inmates based on specified criteria until the population fell below 100% of capacity. But according to the PRI 2000 report, this policy also failed. Despite several years of prison overcrowding, an emergency was never declared and no inmates were released under this provision.

SUPERVISED HOME RELEASE PROGRAM (SHR)

A second legislative approach to the prison overcrowding problem was the creation of an early release program, called supervised home release (SHR), which the legislature established in 1981. This program shifted discretionary release authority from the parole board to DOC. The SHR program became a mechanism for dealing with prison overcrowding, and according to PRI, eventually the legislative intent of the program and the overall criminal sentencing policy were undermined by DOC's need to free prison beds for incoming inmates. Because of the lack of beds, most sentenced inmates served only about 10% of their court-imposed sentences before being released on SHR. Because of this, apparently many offenders opted for prison sentences over community supervision, such as probation.

ELIMINATION OF SHR AND RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF PAROLE

In 1990, apparently because of problems with the administration of the SHR program, the legislature eliminated it. Legislation phased it out over a three-year period ending in July 1993. But the legislature continued to allow DOC discretionary release authority over inmates serving two years or less.

The legislature re-established parole in 1990 for all inmates sentenced to more than two years. The legislature gave the parole board discretionary release jurisdiction over determinate sentences and, after the end of SHR, became the primary mechanism for releasing inmates from prison into the community.

GC:dw