Pennsylvania Board Of Parole V. Scott Summary

Case Analysis In the court case, Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole v. Scott, 524 US. 357 (1998), the defendant was not allowed to obtain any weapons while on parole. In 1983, Scott pleaded ‘nolo contendere’, which means that he doesn’t wish to contend or agree to the guilty charge, to third degree murder. He was sentenced ten to twenty years to prison. Once he finished ten years, which was the minimum sentence he was given, he was released on parole. In 1983, Keith M. Scott was charged with third degree murder and sentenced ten to twenty years in prison. Mr. Scott served ten out of those twenty years which is the minimum sentence he was given. He was then released on parole. He had regulations to follow such as, not being able to

This started in the early 1930s, and ended around the 1960s. This is when the research really occurred because nothing seemed to be working and around 1970s, the government abolished or attempted to abolish parole. Under conditional release of parole, there are two different types, discretionary release, and mandatory release. The discretionary release is based on the paroling authority’s assessment of the offender’s eligibility. Mandatory release is an early release after a time period specified by law. Keith M. Scott was released on parole based on mandatory release. He served the minimum sentence he was given, so he was able to receive early release. The goals of parole are to reintegrate the offender back into the community, without them committing any other crimes. They must follow the rules and if they are not allowed to do certain things or have certain items while on parole, they can’t obtain those items. In this case, the offender was told by the court, he was allowed absolutely no weapons in his home. However, after assaulting a person and three other parole officers, he signed a paper allowing for his home to be searched. Clearly nothing worked because the offender failed to abide by the parole rules and

This model provides a specialized program for the offender, and assessment of offenders’ needs, and an assignment for offenders to be in the appropriate program. In this model, we relate it to the Martinson “Nothing Works” model. This fits in with the case I chose to analyze because it is about parole, and according to some facts and statistics, parole doesn’t really work. The Government attempted to abolish it around 1970, which is where the Brokerage of Services Model came into play and they really did realize that nothing