28 Reforming Parole Hearings in Idaho: A Proposal for Rehabilitation and Accountability by Robert Wilde

Abstract

This paper discusses the effects biased-based parole decisions have on communities, those who have committed crimes, and the families who are involved. There are three important strategies to consider that will promote objectivity and prevent parole bias within Idaho’s Parole Commission. Step one creates a system that establishes strict and defined guidelines that the Commission must follow. Step two puts in place open and clear communication that details reasons for approval or denial, and if outside the scope of guidelines, a reasonable reason as to why. And step three requires commissioners to have a better understanding of judicial laws and adhere to those laws and the sentencing passed down to the convicted. Implementing new and improved criminal justice reform will promote professionalism, validate rehabilitation, and establish accountability that will focus on evidence-based decisions.

Introduction

When facing Idaho’s parole commission, you sit there with clammy palms, a pounding heartbeat, beads of sweat that stick to your brow, and a silence that pierces the room as the fate of your future hangs in the balance. Unfortunately, many Idaho inmates face this scenario regularly, and no matter how hard they try or how well their behavior has been, they are denied the opportunity to regain their freedom. Oftentimes due to the opinion that an individual did not serve enough time. Contrary to belief, this process can be re-traumatizing for everyone involved, and it creates an environment where individuals do not trust the system. So, then the question becomes: what can be done to remove biased opinions within parole hearings so that we can regain trust and remove the barriers that’ve been in place for far too long? Throughout this research paper, I will use the term “flop.” This statement refers to the action some commissioners take in extending an individual’s sentence beyond their fixed-time. Fixed-time is the minimum amount of time a person will serve in prison before becoming parole eligible. There are three constructive possibilities to consider in regards to inmates who exhibit good behavior yet get denied parole in Idaho: establish district oversight committees, offer training for parole board members, and provide transparency in the decision-making process.

Background

Idaho unfortunately does not practice sentencing guidelines and leaves the responsibility of releasing an inmate up to the Idaho Commission of Pardons and Parole. According to Watts et al., there are no statutory requirements for the Commission to follow after denying an individual parole and can request a further date at their discretion. This necessitates the idea that inmates who may have done well and exhibit good behavior can still do a year, two years, or even five years past their parole eligibility date. When Idaho’s Parole Commission was created in 1947, it had to conduct hearings within two years of an inmate’s denial. This is not the case anymore, and in truth, the Commission’s policies may have gradually gotten worse since 1947. Between then and now, thousands of inmates have sat in front of Idaho’s Commission of Pardons and Parole, only to experience the sentencing process over again while being denied the opportunity to gain their freedom back. For some, this is retraumatizing and devalues the good behavior some may have exhibited while incarcerated.

In 1982, when the Truth in Sentencing (TIS) law was passed, Idaho was one of the first states to remove an inmate’s ability to earn good-time for exhibiting good behavior during imprisonment. According to Families for Justice Reform, the TIS law requires individuals to serve a certain portion of their time behind bars which greatly reduces the chances for early release when residents are program complete. What this illustrates is that when you remove the ability to work towards something better, people lose hope and stop caring about the consequences. Not having a complete understanding of the grounds for denial is a compounding factor in these beliefs. How are people supposed to appreciate and rely on the system when they don’t even know why they are being punished? Transparency and openness create trust, which allows individuals the opportunity to grow and move forward in their lives.

Idaho’s Commission of Pardons and Parole could conduct themselves in a way that would decrease biased opinions. According to Ogilvie, the Commission has been breaking the rules for decades by not filing the proper documents to the Secretary of State and has failed to turn over documents related to denials of pardons or clemency. In 2023, the Commission was fined $12,000 for documentation violations (Ogilvie). Practices like this carry over to those who encounter the Commission for possible parole release. The Commission’s executive director Ashley Dowell has stated, “That’s the way it has been done for as long as the staff can remember.”

Artiach, the former deputy Secretary of State who worked with the commission for 40 years, also states, “There was always a problem with getting those documents (Ogilvie).” This is a problem that has been culturally passed down from generation to generation and has become normal for incoming commissioners. Without transparency, there will be a lack of oversight, and without oversight, people tend to become complacent in how they conduct themselves and the organization they represent.

Jared Mendez, an inmate who resides at the Idaho Department of Corrections has had firsthand experience with the Commission of Pardons and Parole. A district Judge gave Mendez a four-year fixed sentence with eleven years indeterminate for voluntary manslaughter. What this is saying is that the judge felt justified enough (considering the situation and circumstances) in giving Jared the chance at parole after he served four years in prison. Unfortunately, the commission denied Mendez parole and extended his next hearing for another five years. They did not give him a reason why at the hearing, and he stated, “They sent the reason for denial to my case manager and the reason they denied me was because they felt I didn’t do enough time considering the charge.” Keep in mind that Jared had no Disciplinary Offense Reports, no infractions, he maintained work, and completed his rehabilitation classes assigned to him. This is all after a pre-board official recommended that Jared be released and stated that he was a good candidate for parole.

This decision had a profound effect on Mendez and his family. Confusion set in and the questions of why began to surface. How can others who exhibit bad behavior be released when those who do well get denied due to an opinion? His children felt cheated, his daughter suffered depression, and he felt like a failure. Jared also states, “How can a judge, who has a law degree, sentence me to four years yet be overshadowed by someone else’s opinion?” This really is the question, what can be done that will insure a fair and unbiased process for everyone involved?

Unfortunately, Jared is one of many families who have faced this type of scenario throughout the years. It has a lasting effect on children, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, and even those who pay taxes. According to the Prison Policy Initiative, the cost to house a single inmate is roughly $42,000 annually, and Idaho maintains 15,000 people behind bars (“Idaho Profile”). This indicates that taxpayers pay roughly $600 million a year to house inmates within the state and out of state. In 2023, Justice Reinvestment in Idaho (JRI) released data stating Idaho Corrections had a parole grant rate of 55%. This means 45% of those who face parole, and are eligible for release are being held back while millions are being spent on housing residents who have served time beyond their parole eligibility date.

There has been a significant increase in denials since 2018 when grant rates were at 70% (JRI). It’s also worth noting that Idaho has an incarceration rate of 720 people per 100,000 residents. This rate is higher than any other Democratic country in the world (“Idaho Profile”). These types of statistics are unsettling and need to be addressed. Idaho has taken some steps in restructuring the parole process by being more compliant in submitting documents to the Secretary of State, but there’s still more that can be done. Individuals like Jared and his family should be given factual reasons behind why they were denied. For instance, states like Michigan are not allowed to deny parole for those who have non-violent charges unless there’s an evidence-based reason behind denial (The Detroit News Editorial Staff). Wyoming allows staff members – who have day-to-day interactions with inmates – to attend hearings to talk on behalf of those being released or not (Renaud). The parole process can be difficult for everyone, and making decisions that affect not only those incarcerated, but the victims and families involved can be quite daunting. It’s difficult to rationalize who gets to go home and who does not. There are three options to consider that will make this process fair by giving value to those who exhibit good behavior while eliminating the chances of biased opinions.

Steps for Reform

The first step in addressing the issue of biased opinions within Idaho’s Commission of Pardons and Parole is to create an oversight committee by appointing an auditor who oversees the Commission’s decisions. According to United States Bill S. 1401, it was recommended that the Bureau of Prisons appoint an Inspector General to oversee all prison conduct to maintain safe and satisfactory living conditions for all inmates. Even though the parole commission is somewhat different, the same criteria can be applied by incorporating inspection guidelines and detailed reports. For instance, a district analyst should be encouraged to gather community input from parolees, parolees’ families, advocacy groups, and the victims who have been affected by crimes.

Gathering information from all stakeholders is valuable in that it provides a perspective from all points of view and allows for a neutral and unbiased opinion from the auditor. It’s also important for the inspector to gather administrative guidelines and policies the commission uses in support of their decisions. The purpose of this is to evaluate how and why decisions were made and fix any underlying problems that may exist. Once a report is created, it will consist of any and all recommendations to improve the parole process and would then be made available to the Attorney General, Secretary of State, Governor, and the public. No decision by the parole board should be made subjectively and should be based on objective evidence.

This leads to the second step in improving transparency and accountability within Pardons and Parole. Jorge Renaud graded all 50 states based on their release systems and sadly Idaho scored an F with his methodology. Part of his scoring was constructed on transparency and whether states remain secretive in their decision-making process. Idaho lacks openness and can improve how they present information surrounding why they make decisions. Guidelines people can understand need to be established and decisions to grant or deny parole should be based on those strict principles.

If decisions are made outside of those requirements, the Commission should explain to the public, and those eligible for parole, why or how they came to that conclusion. It’s important to note that incarcerated individuals’ information is sensitive and auditors must comply with HIPAA rules and regulations when reviewing inmates’ records. There needs to be factual, unbiased reasoning as to why parole was denied and establishing clear parameters can prevent subjective outcomes. Idaho does have an appeal process and for many inmates who are denied parole, they can submit what’s known as a self-initiative once a year after denial. Unfortunately, many self-initiatives are denied and inmates are not provided with reasons as to why they were dismissed.

This process devalues the transformation and hard work some individuals exhibit in making a change in their lives. The self-initiative process is beneficial and can be used as a great tool in allowing individuals an opportunity to fix their mistakes by proving themselves capable of parole. It also can be used by the commission to see how an individual will react to a denial and what actions they exhibit afterwards. However, if inmates meet all requirements for release, and are still denied, the commission should give a detailed explanation as to why they were denied and present this to the inmate, Secretary of State, and the public. When people understand why a decision was made, it makes it easier to accept and honor the final outcome whether they agree or disagree with it.

Last but not least, providing Idaho board members with proper training and educational programs needed can improve evidence-based decisions. According to the Advacocy, Communications & External Affairs Team, The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) provides training for new board members and is connected with the Bureau of Prisons. The NIC also led a major initiative that provided board members with resources such as the Comprehensive Framework for Paroling Authorities in an Era of Evidence-Based Practices, and Parole Essentials: Practical Guides for Parole Leaders (Thigpen et al.).

Estimated costs to kickstart this type of training would range from $2,000 per person, up to $20,000 per person and is reliant on the level of training desired (U.S. Department of Justice). For instance, training in regards to judicial laws would be more expensive than self-guided books on ethical decision making. It’s also important to mention that California Board of Parole Hearings use training that focuses on trauma informed care, interview techniques, and decision-making skills that have improved their objective decisions (Advocacy, Communication & External Affairs Team.). Understanding trauma and the effects it has on an individual is one of the most important tools one can possess.

The implementation of these educational tools within Idaho’s parole hearing process will only strengthen and reinforce the decisions made by the commission. Once training is approved, it’s equally important to receive feedback from board members and the impact it’s had on them. Maintaining the integrity of the Commissioners’ views is critical and a systematic approach that allows the Secretary of State to review their responses will ensure confidentiality and a safe environment within. This will allow for a better understanding of what is working and what is not working. Board members have an important role within society, and the decisions they make will not only affect those who have been impacted by crimes, but those who have committed them as well. Giving them the tools necessary in creating a comprehensive and productive guide towards an evidence-based system can effectively reduce overcrowding while lowering community cost. Following these three steps will insure a fair and understanding parole process for inmates who exhibit good behavior while also adhering to the needs of all stakeholders involved.

Justification for Solution

Adding these three solutions is a great step in bridging the gap between those who have committed crimes and their reentry back into society. The focus is to insure those who have exhibited good behavior, and made honest efforts to work on themselves, the ability to be released to their families when their fixed time is up. Locking people up and throwing away the key is not what this reality is, and having this mindset only creates barriers and establishes resentment for those who are eventually free to go home. We need more compassion and understanding for those who have made mistakes yet have exhibited good behavior while paying their debt to society. These individuals will be released at some point. An individual who feels empowered and valued will be a better neighbor than one who feels like society has turned their backs on them.

There are some people who have seen the effects the parole hearing process has on individuals and their families. Carnell, a resident at the Idaho Department of Corrections, views Corrections as a place that allows inmates to correct themselves, yet the commission does not acknowledge everyone’s corrective actions. This, of course, makes people feel undervalued; they see a broken system, it strips their humanity from them, and people lose any hope they once had. It’s important for society to see that this is retraumatizing for everyone involved, and that not all inmates are the sum of their mistakes.

There needs to be a system in place that does not go against what a judge has ordered, and if so, a detailed explanation as to why that decision was made should be provided (Carnell). He’s also witnessed people with no Disciplinary Offense Reports (DOR) be denied parole because the commission felt they were manipulating the system. This is the opinion of one person. However, people can change, so where’s the checks and balances here? When asked if there was one thing he would like to say to the commission, what would it be? Carnell stated, “You will never know what our growth will look like if you never know where we came from, so don’t count us out. Recognize the change we’ve accomplished while being incarcerated.”

Alex, another resident at IDOC, has been in and out of Corrections for a total of ten years and has been released three to four times for non-violent offenses. He will admit the times he was denied parole were for good reason and his actions justified his denial. Alex has seen this process from both sides, as someone who didn’t care about change, to someone who has changed and wants more in his life. This is important because he has personal experience with the commission and has seen how it works firsthand. He has called the system archaic and outdated, which needs renovations that establishes new guidelines on how the process works. When asked what could be done to encourage individuals to trust the system, Alex stated, “Transparency, there needs to be oversight that establishes accountability, people need to know what to expect, and guidelines or a matrix that solidifies reasons for denial.”

When people know what to expect, they will understand why a decision was made which will only strengthen public support. Public support is extremely important in the success of incarcerated individuals, and people tend to lose motivation when they are denied parole after they have met all the requirements a judge has ordered them to comply with. This is also a junction in a residence life when they can either continue to do well, or it can be the turning point when they decide to give up and resort to gang activity or drug addiction. Deputy Warden Craig who works for the Idaho Department of Corrections has seen this outcome far too often. He has stated, “It can cause them to go down the wrong path, especially when those individuals see the same exact behaviors from others, yet get paroled.” This can be a critical moment when society can either help people grow from their mistakes, or create someone who resents the system.

One topic the Warden focused on the most, was the fact that these people who are put in commissioner positions are normal community members with no requirements or educational backgrounds. They may not have any understanding of judicial law and oftentimes go against what a judge has ordered them to do. All they see is who this prisoner is on paper. This in itself can lead to objective decisions, because we are human and certain behaviors or actions can cause people to judge others. Due to this possible objectivity, Craig strongly believes that the commission should have a solid understanding of the judicial system and honor that system. He states, “Don’t flop a guy because you can, they should do what the judge says.”

For example, if John was sentenced to a five-year fixed term and the judge also took his license three years after his release, don’t take his license for five years, or flop him for another two years. What a flop means is the action the commission takes in denying an offender parole for a certain amount of time. This undermines the judicial system and one of many reasons why commissioners need to have education before being put in these important roles.

Idaho’s parole process practices an old and outdated system when dealing with those who suffer from addictions, mental health problems, trauma, or just made poor decisions. Seeing how inmates view the process, and how it aligns with those who manage those facilities is convincing enough to prove that there needs to be new policies in place to insure a subjective outcome.

Transparency and oversight are important aspects of this process, but as the Warden mentioned, too much transparency can damage and prevent a person from growing when released. So the questions as to why people were denied or granted parole is always needed, but education and an understanding of the process is a major priority. According to Craig, it costs roughly $75 dollars a day to house an inmate. If residents are program complete and do as a judge ordered, they shouldn’t be held back by parole commissioners. This would not only reduce overcrowding in Idaho prisons, but it will decrease taxpayer spending as well.

Counterargument & Rebuttal

Those on the other side of this issue may disagree with these solutions and view the system as unflawed with no reason for improvement. For instance, the JRI legislation was created to form objective policies that would improve the outcome of these hearings. An article published by JRI states, “JRI emphasizes the use of parole guidelines to help standardize the reasoning behind releases and ensure the most violent people stay in prison while lower risk individuals are released.” Statements like this solidifies a system that practices strict guidelines and works towards keeping the most violent offenders behind bars. When the average person reads articles like these, it allows them to believe the system is working by keeping the right individuals in prison. In truth, commissioners use risk assessment tools such as Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) and the Global Appraisal of Individual Needs (GAIN) that determine the likelihood an inmate will reoffend or not (Watts et al.). These tools are not guidelines; they are exactly what they are, tools. Commissioners base their decisions completely on these algorithms and do not factor in human interaction inmates have with staff and facility leaders.

In addition to trust in risk assessment tools, some also argue that transparency and a continued education are not needed in determining an individual’s release. Deputy Warden Craig mentions that complete transparency can be damaging for those being released back into society. Even though this idea has some merit to it, understanding what guidelines to follow should be communicated to the public, and those who have committed offenses against the state. According to Watts et al., Idaho has established parole release specifications since May of 2015, but these requirements are exempt from public disclosure. Policies written in this way cause confusion, misunderstanding, and a lack of trust in the process. How are people supposed to understand what is expected of them if there’s no transparency from the Commission of Pardons and Parole?

Further education is only beneficial when it comes to putting the life of others in someone else’s hands. Commissioners are appointed by the governor and include five part-time members who are not required to have any qualifications; they are considered servants of the state (Watts et al.). This suggests that ordinary people are put into positions of power without any requirements to pursue higher education. Commissioners have a tough and complicated job, and it’s their duty to make sure the right people are released back into society. Wouldn’t it make sense to appoint the right people in these positions that have a clear and defined understanding of judicial laws?

The mission statement of the Commission states, “The Commission of Pardons and Parole will contribute to public safety by utilizing sound, professional judgment and evidence-based parole decision making practices.” A key word to notice in this statement is evidence-based. People who understand law will base their decisions on objective proof, not on subjective beliefs. Thus, to ensure a fair and safe process for both the public and parolees, it is advisable that Idaho’s parole system experience reforms that will be essential in its growth moving forward.

Conclusion

After all, knowing what it’s like to sit in front of Commissioners as they pass judgement upon you once again will help in understanding how flawed the system really is. Idaho’s Commissions of Pardons and Parole is infected with subjective beliefs when making a life changing decision on other people’s lives. This paper proposes a three-pronged approach that will create a process that establishes accountability, community understanding, and a greater knowledge for the judicial process. People make bad decisions in their lives, and some grow up in dysfunctional homes that foster bad behavior. This doesn’t mean change is impossible, sometimes it takes time, it takes community involvement, and it requires maturity. Society can help determine which path these individuals take when that time comes. Just like people, mankind must mature and change old ways of thinking to grow and become better versions of itself. We can make a difference by giving value to those who don’t believe in themselves. The more society kicks people while they’re down, the more they believe that’s where they belong. It is absolutely critical that policymakers act now. Community advocates and those affected by the parole process must speak out and address their concerns to the legislative bodies. To prevent an echo chamber of one-sided remarks, the opinions of all stakeholders must be heard. This is an issue that cannot wait any longer, and it’s essential that the use of old policies and beliefs be addressed immediately during the next legislative session.

Works Cited

Advocacy, Communication & External Affairs Team. Advocacy, Communication & External
Affairs Team.

Carnell, Sean. Personal interview. 9 April 2025.

Cowan, David. Personal interview. 10 April 2025.

Deputy Warden Craig, Brian. Personal interview. 11 April 2025.

The Detroit News Editorial Staff. “Our editorial: Good behavior paroles will cut costs.” The
Detroit News, 2015.

Families for Justice Reform. “Truth in Sentencing: Paying More Money to Make Our
Communities Less Safe.” www.famm.org.

“Idaho profile.” Prison Policy Initiative, https://www.prisonpolicy.org/profiles/ID.html.
Accessed 5 May 2025.

Justice Reinvestment in Idaho. “Report to the Legislature: Idaho Dept of Correction.” 2024.
Mendez, Jared. Personal interview. 17 March 2025.

Ogilvie, Seth. “The Commission of Pardons and Parole Needs Clemency.” Idaho Reports, 2019.

Ossoff, et al. “BILL S. 1401.” 118th Congress 1st Session, vol. The Senate of the United States.

Renaud, Jorge. “Grading the parole release systems of all 50 states.” Prison Policy Initiative,
2019, https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/grading_parole.html.

Thigpen, Morris L., et al. “Core Competencies: A resource for Parole Board Chairs, Members, and Executive Staff.” National Institute of Corrections, 2010.

U.S. Department of Justice. “Department of Justice Justification for Fiscal Year 2025.” US
Department of Justice