explaining that a parole board's predictions as to whether there is a reasonable probability that the prisoner will abide by the law and whether release is compatible with the welfare of society should be based on "the aggregate of all of the factors which may have any pertinence," including matters such as the prisoner's criminal record, his or her prior experience on parole, and the circumstances of the offense
How later courts described this case
- explaining that a parole board's predictions as to whether there is a reasonable probability that the prisoner will abide by the law and whether release is compatible with the welfare of society should be based on "the aggregate of all of the factors which may have any pertinence," including matters such as the prisoner's criminal record, his or her prior experience on parole, and the circumstances of the offense
- observing that "judicial review of Parole Board matters is limited to a consideration of whether guidelines and principles have been substantially satisfied, and ordinarily will not involve the review of the merits of the Parole Board decision"
- affirming parole denial that had been based on the Board’s conclusion that both “the punitive and deterrent aspects of * * * sentence have not been fulfilled.”
- noting that Board is expected to draw *227 from members’ diverse backgrounds when making “highly predictive and individualized discretionary appraisals”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Sullivan, P. J. A. D.,
Temporarily Assigned (concurring) : I am in full agreement with the guidelines and principles for Parole Board hearings and decisions set forth in foregoing opinion. However, I think it should be made clear that judicial review of Parole Board matters is limited to a consideration of whether guidelines and principles have been substantially satisñed, and ordinarily will not involve a review of the merits of the Parole Board decision. As stated by Judge (now Justice) William J. Brennan, Jr. in White v. Parole Board of State of N. J., 17 N. J. Super. 580, 586 (App. Div. 1952) :
“The grant or denial of parole is a matter for the exercise of proper judgment by the paroling authority and is not in any way a judicial function. In re Fitzpatrick, 9 N. J. Super. 511 (Cty. Ct. 1950), affirmed 14 N. J. Super. 213 (App. Div. 1951). Judicial review of an action such as that before us here is limited essentially to a determination whether it was taken within the statutory powers of the parole authority, properly applied. In re O’Connor, 130 N. J. L. 194 (Sup. Ct. 1943).”
Of course, if the Parole Board decision on the merits is palpably arbitrary or clearly erroneous, it would not be immune from judicial correction.
For remandment — Chief Justice Weinteaub, Justices Jacobs, Hall and Mountain, and Judges Coneobd, Sullivan and Lewis — 7.
Opposed — Hone.