NO BODY, NO PAROLE? AN ARGUMENT AGAINST NEEDLESS BRIGHT-LINE ADVOCACY

• Published in: Boston College law review 2024-01, Vol.65 (1), p.279-316
• Main Author: Walker, Tracy L
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Dawson, Christopher; False arrests & convictions; Imprisonment; Law; Legislation; Legislators; Murders & murder attempts; Offenders; Parole; Parole & probation; Petitions; Rights; Unsolved crimes; Victims; Victims of crime; Victims rights
• ISSN: 0161-6587; 1930-661X

Beginning in 2015, Australia introduced "no body, no parole" (NBNP) laws in several of its states, representing a strict approach to parole decisions in relatively rare cases: those where a homicide conviction occurred, and the victim's body remained lost. Variations of these laws exist within Australia itself, generally (1) prohibiting parole entirely for applicable offenders or (2) making it a determination on whether to grant parole after the non-parole period. England followed with its own version of a NBNP law titled "Helen's Law" in 2019, and the United States saw its first enactment of a NBNP law in Utah in 2021. NBNP legislation touches on victims' rights as well as the rights of incarcerated people, such as protection from double-jeopardy, self-incrimination, and wrongful convictions. Overall, NBNP laws bring into question what the purpose of parole is in the criminaljustice system. This Note argues that NBNP laws reframe the purpose of parole from a rehabilitative purpose to a punitive one. Although there are legitimate rehabilitative concerns in cases where a convicted offender refuses to disclose the whereabouts of a victim's body, these laws likely will not serve their intended purpose, and flexibility is necessary to mitigate possible NBNP issues involving the rights of those accused or convicted of a crime.