Making Parole Reform a Reality
Scott’s repeated denials show how parole has drifted from its purpose. Instead of recognizing transformation and reconciliation, the process has silenced truth and rewarded performance. His story is not unique — it reflects systemic failures that advocates across the country are working to change.
That’s why Set Him Free stands alongside national voices calling for reform. The Prison Policy Initiative and the MacArthur Justice Center’s National Parole Transformation Project have outlined 16 guiding principles to restore parole as a fair, transparent, and restorative process. These principles show the path forward:
Guiding Principles for Parole Reform
Universal access to parole for all incarcerated people
A presumption of release when eligibility is met
Clear, consistent guidelines for decisions
The right to challenge denials and receive actionable feedback
Criteria that focus on growth and change, not just past mistakes
Timely reconsideration after denial
Family and support participation in hearings
Guaranteed legal counsel and preparation resources
Diverse parole boards with rehabilitation experts and formerly incarcerated voices
Transparency in decisions and published data
Individualized conditions of supervision, with limits on fees and restrictions
Flexible check-ins that support re-entry
Limits on supervision, ensuring parole is not lifelong
A fair revocation process that protects due process and avoids reincarceration for non-criminal conduct
These principles are not abstract—they are the roadmap to restoring hope for people like Scott, and to reclaiming parole as a true tool of justice.
👉 For the full list of guiding principles, visit the Prison Policy Initiative’s resource.
Clear Guidelines and the Right to Challenge
Parole boards should be required to follow consistent, transparent guidelines when making release decisions. Without clear standards, decisions become subjective, unpredictable, and unfair.
Equally important, people denied parole must have the right to challenge the basis of their denial. Without this safeguard, denials remain unchecked, leaving applicants with no path to correction or accountability.
Scott’s repeated denials show why this reform is urgent. Each time, the reasons given were vague or based on things he could not change. With clear guidelines and the right to challenge, parole would become a process rooted in fairness, not in silence or dismissal.
Why This Strengthens This Advocacy
Shows fairness: We’re not asking for special treatment, but for consistent rules that apply to everyone.
Highlights accountability: Boards must explain themselves and allow review, just like any other decision‑making body.
Connects to Scott’s story: His denials illustrate the harm caused when guidelines are unclear and challenges are impossible.
Principle in Action: Inconsistent Standards
Compliance Highlight
"Scott did everything asked of him — he followed commissioner guidance, completed assignments, and brought proof. His compliance demonstrates growth and responsibility, yet inconsistent application of standards erased his progress and left his efforts dismissed."
At one of Scott’s parole hearings, a commissioner gave him specific suggestions to strengthen his case for release. Scott took those suggestions seriously, completed them, and brought proof to his next hearing. But by then, he was at a different prison with a different commissioner.
The new commissioner refused to honor the assignment Scott had completed. What one commissioner required, another ignored. This inconsistency shows how parole decisions can depend more on who sits in the chair than on the applicant’s actual growth and effort.
Scott’s court‑appointed attorney had the opportunity to speak up, to challenge the dismissal, and to insist that the board honor its own commitments. He did not. That silence left Scott without an advocate in the room, and the board’s inconsistency went unchecked.
Parole should not be a moving target. When commissioners give guidance, it must be honored across hearings and attorneys should be willing to challenge when parole processes are not being honored by those in charge. Without consistent standards, applicants are set up to fail, no matter how hard they work to meet expectations.
This failure shows why reform is urgent:
Applicants must have the right to challenge denials.
Commissioners must be held to consistent, clear guidelines.
Legal counsel must actively defend fairness, not remain silent.
Without these safeguards, applicants are left vulnerable to shifting standards and unchallenged dismissals, no matter how hard they work to comply.
Principle in Action: Advocacy Angle
Problem 1: Different commissioners apply different standards, leaving applicants without a fair path forward.
Problem 2: Attorney's who do little to nothing for the applicant leaves them without hope of ever walking free.
Impact: Scott’s efforts were dismissed, making him look worse on paper despite his compliance.
Reform Principle: Boards must follow consistent, clear guidelines and honor commitments across hearings. Attorney's are there for the applicant, not for the board.
Principle in Action: Silence in Representation
The right to counsel is hollow when attorneys remain silent or dismissed. Even when Scott’s attorney spoke up, a commissioner brushed aside his comments. This shows how advocacy was minimized, leaving Scott without meaningful defense. Scott’s hearings reveal how representation often failed to defend fairness in real time.
In nearly all of Scott’s parole hearings, his court‑appointed attorneys took little to no action, mostly remaining silent until closing statements. By then, the harm was already done. They did not challenge commissioner's inconsistent standards, did not defend Scott's compliance with prior guidance, and did not speak up when Scott's testimony was dismissed.
At one hearing, an attorney did speak up — but the commissioner brushed aside his comments with wording that suggested indifference. Even when advocacy was attempted, it was minimized.
This pattern shows how the right to counsel is hollow when attorneys remain silent or dismissed, leaving applicants exposed to unchecked authority. When attorneys remain passive, or allow those with authority to override due process, applicants are left vulnerable to shifting expectations and unchecked denials.
Reform is needed:
Parole applicants must have the right to effective legal representation, not just the presence of an attorney.
Attorneys must be required to advocate throughout hearings, not only at closing.
Attorneys must be required to challenge unfair denials and defend applicants’ compliance with board guidance.
Silence should never be acceptable when liberty is at stake.
Principle in Action: Unequal Application of Marsy’s Law
“Though Tammy never attended hearings and forgave Scott, Marsy’s Law still extended denial periods and tilted the process against him.”
Scott’s crime occurred before Marsy’s Law was passed in 2008. At one parole hearing, his attorney argued that the law should not be considered retroactively, and Commissioner J agreed.
But at his next hearing, Commissioner Anderson dismissed the same argument, stating, “Marsy’s Law is law and we’re going to follow the law.” This inconsistency shows how parole decisions can depend more on who sits in the chair than on fairness or precedent.
Applicants deserve consistent standards. When one commissioner recognizes fairness and another ignores it, the process becomes arbitrary. Reform is needed to ensure laws are applied consistently, and that applicants are not punished by shifting interpretations.
Systemic Inconsistency
Commissioner J: Recognized fairness — that Marsy’s Law shouldn’t retroactively affect Scott’s case.
Commissioner Anderson: Applied Marsy’s Law rigidly, ignoring context and precedent.
Impact: Scott’s case was weakened not because of his actions, but because commissioners applied the law differently.
To learn more about Marsy's Law Right Click Here.
The Double Edge of Marsy’s Law
“Marsy’s Law was born from tragedy, and its intent was noble. But when applied without distinction, it turns parole hearings into trials of murder even for those whose crimes were not. Scott’s case shows how laws meant to protect can also harm when power is taken to its limit.”
Intended Purpose: Protect victims and families from being retraumatized, ensure their voices are heard.
Unintended Harm:
Extended denial periods (up to 15 years) even for non‑murder cases.
Victim influence outweighs applicant testimony, even when the victim forgives or is absent.
Crimes of lesser severity are treated procedurally like murder, erasing nuance.