Nebraska Revised Statute 83-1,114

Print Friendly
Chapter 83

83-1,114.

Board; deferment of parole; grounds.

(1) Whenever the board considers the release of a committed offender who is eligible for release on parole, it shall order his or her release unless it is of the opinion that his or her release should be deferred because:

(a) There is a substantial risk that he or she will not conform to the conditions of parole; or

(b) Subject to subsection (3) of this section, his or her continued correctional treatment, medical care, or vocational or other training in the facility will substantially enhance his or her capacity to lead a law-abiding life when released at a later date.

(2) In making its determination regarding a committed offender's release on parole, the board shall give consideration to the decision guidelines as set forth in its rules and regulations and shall take into account each of the following factors:

(a) The adequacy of the offender's parole plan, including sufficiency of residence, employment history, and employability;

(b) The offender's institutional behavior;

(c) The offender's previous experience on parole and how recent such experience is;

(d) Whether the offender has completed a risk and needs assessment completed pursuant to section 83-192; and

(e) Any testimony or written statement by a victim as provided in section 81-1848.

(3) Parole shall not be denied for a committed offender solely because the department did not offer or delayed programming due to operational issues, including staffing shortages, maintenance issues, or lack of funding.

(4) If the board denies or defers parole, the board shall select a single primary reason for such denial or deferral.

Source

Annotations

  • The expectancy of release created by this section is not entitled to constitutional protection. Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (1979).

  • The procedure in use under this section, which requires at least one hearing per year for each inmate, provides all necessary due process with respect to the discretionary parole decision. Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (1979).

  • The argument that a facially neutral parole policy has a racially disproportionate impact, and is unconstitutional, is without merit. Inmates of Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex v. Greenholtz, 436 F.Supp. 432 (D. Neb. 1976).