Printer Friendly
The Free Library
14,814,956 articles and books
Member login
User name  
Password 
 
Join us Forgot password?

U.S. Supreme Court: PAROLE-POLICIES EX POST FACTO.


Garner v. Jones 120 S.Ct. 1362 (2000). An inmate challenged the constitutionality of the scheduling of his parole hearings. The district court dismissed the case as frivolous but the appeals court reversed in part and remanded. On remand, the district court granted summary judgment against the inmate. The appeals court reversed and remanded and the United States Supreme Court United States Supreme Court: see Supreme Court, United States.  granted certiorari certiorari

In law, a writ issued by a superior court for the reexamination of an action of a lower court. The writ of certiorari was originally a writ from England's Court of Queen's (King's) Bench to the judges of an inferior court; it was later expanded to include writs
. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the appeals court decision. The Supreme Court ruled that the retroactive application of an amended state rule which changed the frequency of required parole reconsideration hearings for inmates serving life sentences from every three years to every eight years did not necessarily violate the Ex Post Facto ex post facto adj. Latin for "after the fact," which refers to laws adopted after an act is committed making it illegal although it was legal when done, or increases the penalty for a crime after it is committed. Such laws are specifically prohibited by the U. S.  Clause because a significant risk of prolonging the prisoner's incarceration Confinement in a jail or prison; imprisonment.

Police officers and other law enforcement officers are authorized by federal, state, and local lawmakers to arrest and confine persons suspected of crimes. The judicial system is authorized to confine persons convicted of crimes.
 was not inherent in the framework of the rule. The Court noted that under Georgia law a prisoner could only challenge denial of parole in state court if there is a showing of a "gross abuse of discreti on" in determining if a prisoner should receive an early release. (State Board of Pardons Part of the executive branch of state government authorized to grant pardons, and restore civil and political rights, to individuals convicted of crimes. A pardon, in the legal sense, releases an individual from punishment or penalty, but does not necessarily exonerate them of guilt.  and Paroles of Georgia)
COPYRIGHT 2000 CRS, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2000, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

 Reader Opinion

Title:

Comment:



 

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Publication:Corrections Caselaw Quarterly
Article Type:Brief Article
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:May 1, 2000
Words:182
Previous Article:U.S. Appeals Court: PAROLE-GRANTING.(Brief Article)
Next Article:U.S. Appeals Court: PAROLE-REVOCATION.(Brief Article)
Topics:



Related Articles
U.S. District Court: PAROLE.(Brief Article)
U.S. District Court: PAROLE-POLICIES EX POST FACTO.(Brief Article)
U.S. Appeals Court: EX POST FACTO PAROLE.(Brief Article)
U.S. Appeals Court: EX POST FACTO SUPERVISED RELEASE.(Brief Article)
U.S. District Court: PAROLE GOOD TIME.(prisoners and prisons)(Brief Article)
U.S. Appeals Court: PAROLE-REVOCATION GOOD TIME.(prisoners and prisons)(Brief Article)
Release.(Brief Article)
Jones v. Ray.(RELEASE)(violation of due process of law)(Brief Article)
Hunter v. Ayers.(CIVIL RIGHTS)(habeas corpus )(Brief Article)
Sentence.(Brief Article)

Terms of use | Copyright © 2010 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters | Submit articles