The Kentucky Parole Board for Dummies

Based on the series of books that came out in the early 90’s and what the title implies, this article will attempt to give an overview on the issues and controversies surrounding the effectiveness or lack thereof within the current Kentucky Parole Board system. The costs are not only for families & friends of those incarcerated but to all the folks who call the Commonwealth of Kentucky home.

According to the Prison Policy Initiative, a non-profit group with cutting edge research that exposes the broader harm of mass incarceration, Kentucky incarcerates a higher percentage of people than any independent democratic country on earth! The Kentucky incarceration rate of 889 per 100,000 includes prisons, jails, immigration detention and juvenile justice facilities. Kentucky rates of imprisonment have dramatically grown in the last 40 years. Today, Kentucky’s incarceration rates stand out internationally.

Kentucky incarcerates a higher percentage of people than any independent democratic country.

The incarceration rate of women in the U.S. is in crisis, as it remains at an all-time high with every U.S. state incarcerating at a higher rate than most of our closest international allies. Collectively the U.S. accounts for 4% of the world’s women while holding 25% of the women incarcerated on a worldwide scale.

Women in Kentucky face almost the same incarceration rate as women in El Salvador, a country that has been described an authoritarian police state.

The Prison Policy Initiative has graded all 50 states, assessing for a fair and equitable parole system based on 5 general factors.

1. Whether a state’s legislature allows the parole board to offer discretionary parole to most people sentenced today.

2. The opportunity for the person seeking parole to meet face to face with board members and other factors about witnesses & testimony.

3. The principles by which the parole board makes its decisions

4. The degree to which staff help every incarcerated person prepare for their parole hearing.

5. The degree to which the parole board is transparent in the way it incorporates evidence based tools.

Kentucky, no surprise, scored an ‘F’. Perhaps you can see why.

Kentucky currently has 16 criteria that are looked at by their parole board. These are dynamic and static risk factors which are used to assess the risk of someone reoffending and what type of rehabilitation strategies would best help keep a person from reoffending. Static risk factors are factors that never change, such as someone’s criminal history, 1st arrest, type of crimes committed. Dynamic risk factors are characteristics that can change if given an intervention that basically gives a person a different perspective and tools to help navigate some of those earlier issues i.e., substance abuse, thinking errors, other addictions, mental health issues, peer relationships, etc. These would also be considered criminogenic needs-basically, what can be done to help a person lead a more ‘pro-social’ lifestyle, one involving no crime or addiction issues in a broad sense. The ‘responsivity’ is the treatment being provided that is most effective for the person’s individual learning style and is how well a person responded to any of the interventions (treatment) provided that were identified as ‘risks’ during any initial assessments. This is also referred to as the RNR Model (risk-need-responsivity, primarily developed by Canadians Bonta, Andrews and Gendreau). This is an evidence-based model for offender rehabilitation that matches the level of intervention to an individual’s risk of reoffending, targeting the needs (dynamic risk factors) linked to their criminal behavior and individualizing the intervention (treatment) to the person’s learning style and abilities.

The 16 factors the Kentucky Board must assess before recommending or denying parole, according to KYPB10-01(Ky Parole Board Policies & Procedures):

1. Current offense-seriousness, violence involved, firearm use, life taken or death occurred during commission.

2. Prior record-felony and/or misdemeanor convictions, history of violence, prior contact with law enforcement or criminal courts where conviction did not occur.

3. Institutional adjustment and conduct-disciplinary reports, loss of good time, work and program involvement, particularly evidence-based program involvement.

4. Attitude toward authority-before and during incarceration.

5. History of substance abuse.

6. History of prior probation-pre-trial, shock probation or parole violations.

7. Educational history

8. Employment history and job skills

9. History of assaultive, violent behavior

10. Mental status-capacity and stability

11. Terminal illness

12. History of deviant behavior

13. Official and community attitudes toward accepting an inmate back in the county of conviction.

14. Victim impact statement and victim impact hearing.

15. Review of parole discharge plan-housing, employment, need for community treatment and follow-up resources.

16. Other factors involved that relate to public safety or the inmate’s needs.

NO ONE REALLY SEEMS TO KNOW HOW TO GET PAROLED IN KENTUCKY! In April of 2024, The Kentucky Supreme Court issued a ruling in Conn et al, v. Kentucky Parole Board. The Kentucky Parole Board has sole responsibility for determining parole eligibility. The legislature has set the rules that the parole board must follow when making decisions if someone is released on parole. The issue that arose was the parole board was in essence changing the sentence of folks who had the possibility of parole to one in which they are now given a death sentence, also known as a “serve-out”. So, someone could have an excellent institutional record, rehabilitated, educated, assessed to be of low-risk, have an excellent re-entry plan and exceptional community support and still be given a “serve-out” (to die) due to the nature of the crime that may have occurred decades ago. The Kentucky Parole Board only needs “one” factor to be met in order to deny parole and/or give a serve out.

What this case did was grant the Ky Parole Board the power to issue a serve-out on life sentences. The Board had been operating with a broad discretionary power to issue serve outs despite lack of explicit authorization from the legislature to do so. It was Justice Michelle Keller who issued a detailed opinion on Conn et al., that clearly questions the appropriateness of how the parole board in Kentucky goes about determining when serve outs are imposed. Keller wrote “the board wields significant power over the life and future of Kentucky inmates” “It is clear that the board’s internal policies lack any compulsory review processes to check against the board’s unfettered discretion to grant serve-outs of life sentences”. It has been documented that the Parole Board spends roughly 25 minutes each or less on typically 85 parole-related decisions they make on a weekly basis. This is alarming and concerning to Keller as well, concerning any decision to serve out a life sentence given the high interests at stake in those decisions.

Keller further writes “Board members have access to an abundance of information about an inmate but are provided no guidance on how to weigh that information in making their parole decisions. Even if board members wanted to review all of the information provided to them and carefully weight it, they likely would not have enough time to do so, given their burdensome workload.”

Kentucky law requires the Dept of Corrections to provide specific information about the incarcerated individual to the parole board. However, it does not require the parole board to use all the information or at least doesn’t instruct the board how much weight should be given for each piece of information. Keller writes further that the parole board’s own regulations “provide no guidance as to when a serve-out of a life sentence is appropriate or what information the board should consider in making that life-altering decision” and that “he could even be denied any further opportunity at parole based solely on the seriousness of his offense, which, I must emphasize, was already taken into consideration when the judicial branch chose to sentence him to life in prison while still allowing the possibility of parole”. In an October of 2020 ruling, Franklin Circuit Judge Phillip Shepherd had a similar concern, writing “the board’s practices in processing the enormous volume of parole reviews raise questions in terms of whether the board’s policies and procedures are governed by objective criteria, and whether they provide for fair consideration of the issues”

Up until this Conn et al., ruling the legislative and administrative history indicates that “the Board has never had express authority to issue serve-outs.” With more recent direction from the legislature, it does appear that it had accepted the Board’s past practices, but also “the Board has wide discretion in its decision to grant or deny parole.” The Kentucky Supreme Court basically concludes that the present form is not perfect and that “it’s defects will doubtless be remedied by further legislation, and it is not in our opinion justly open to the criticisms made upon it.” They suggest that any concerns regarding parole guidelines would be more effectively resolved through the legislature and in the meantime the Governor can exercise his constitutional power to commute sentences or grant reprieves and pardons.

Talk about kicking the can down the road!!! The message this sends is that good behavior and doing the right thing mean absolutely nothing and it puts an irrevocable judgment on someone’s value and place in society. Justice Kelly wrote “although I agree with the Majority’s ultimate disposition in this case, I concur in result only and write separately to emphasize the significant interests at stake in every parole decision, but especially in those which serve-out a life sentence. I also write to express my concerns with the parole process itself and the lack of checks on the significant power wielded by the Board.” This decision “alters the offender’s life by a forfeiture that is irrevocable. It takes all hope away from an inmate and quashes any incentive he may have to better himself, to behave well, or to contribute to the community any meaningful way. It provides ‘no chance for reconciliation with society’ or for meaningful contrition or forgiveness.”

This not only raises some serious ethical and humanitarian issues, but there are also fiscal responsibilities now placed on the state as the ‘graying’ of our prison systems are greater than ever. As a nation that became a country of “law & order”, “tough on crime” with “mandatory minimums” and “truth in sentencing” acts, we need to take a look at where that has taken us. Those young people who were more prone to impulsive behaviors as emerging adults, are now in their 50’s, 60’s, 70’s+, now being cared for (if you want to call it that) by the state at a time when they could be giving back the wisdom they have gained through lived experience. Numerous studies reveal that most folks age out of crime in their 30’s. I’m not suggesting to needlessly set everyone free but let’s be a little more fair about it. “Serve-outs” should not even be a ‘thing’ but I shall broach that argument later.

According to the Lexington Herald Leader, in the Estel article from May 2021, the Kentucky Parole Board had issued an average of 3 serve-outs a year from 1992 to 2020. By November of 2020, the Kentucky Paroled Board had already issued 19 serve-outs during an 11-month period! This was during Covid, a time when the nation’s prison population significantly declined as officials began to take a closer look at the costs to society this mass incarceration had imposed on our nation. A serve-out on a life sentence is an incredible event not only for the person receiving this sentence, but to their loved ones, it’s a huge f inancial commitment for the state and a loss to public safety if done haphazardly. Today, there are women currently incarcerated at KCIW who have volunteered for serve-outs and others no longer with a willingness or drive to participate in their rehabilitation. For what? It’s not just that loss of hope for individuals, it’s the ripple effect that will have on the rest of the population living in that environment who will be returning back to the community. There is no standard set by the Ky Parole Board and apparently no standards for the Ky Parole Board.

Recently the Prison Policy Initiative in conjunction with MacArthur Justice Center’s National Parole Transformation Project published a document, Principles for Parole Reform. This document is considered a “North Star” document about their beliefs on what our parole system should look like, providing 16 guiding principles to keep in mind when crafting change. This writer will briefly summarize 5 principles that are ‘must haves’ in order to create a fair, just and equitable system to help guide the Ky Parole Board. According to the administrative regulations listed under Title 501, the Kentucky Parole Board falls under the Justice and Public Safety Cabinet. The Ky Department of Corrections also falls under the Justice & Public Safety Cabinet and according to their mission statement claims to create “safer communities for all working through an approach centered on protecting citizens, restoring victims, and reforming wrongdoers-all in a focused environment for accountability and performance". The Commonwealth of Kentucky would benefit by implementing the principles below to their much-needed parole reform initiatives.

1. There needs to be a presumption of release. Clear guidelines to make decisions through state statutes rather than administrative codes based on forward looking, objective factors within the control of the incarcerated person and should focus exclusively on how a person has grown, changed or been productive since being incarcerated rather than the underlying crime of conviction. Statues should use “must” and “shall” when directing parole board to use guidelines and rubrics.

2. Codify objective criteria to justify parole denials and that criteria should have a direct empirical relationship to a risk for future violence. There should be an actionable plan the incarcerated person can follow to ensure release in the future. The Parole Board should then honor these efforts and grant parole when folks have satisfied previously stated requirements.

3. Oversight of the Ky Parole Board-There needs to be oversight and transparency with Ky Parole Board decisions through evaluations with annual and/or bi-annual reports.

4. Public access to parole hearings for transparency and opportunities for supporters to speak out about the person’s character and background as well as how they will be supported in their re-entry. Public access helps ensure the hearing is fair and follows legal standards. Hearings should allow for a person’s own relevant documentation to be submitted in advance, and they should be able to correct incorrect information on the record or offer relevant context.

5. A Ky Parole Board shall be comprised of diverse backgrounds-one that is bipartisan, should include community-based practitioners in psychology & rehabilitation, trauma experts, people who are formerly incarcerated and other experts with the ability to fairly and objectively evaluate candidates for parole. People with backgrounds in law enforcement and corrections should not make up the majority of parole board members.

There are many cases in point that will truly leave you shaking your head when it comes to questionable decisions and will leave you wondering how these inconsistencies have gone on for so long. There are questionable moves with no rhyme or reason on who gets “paid”, meaning who is granted parole, who is denied parole, and who is given the ultimate death sentence to be ‘served-out’ by discretionary decisions from a politically appointed group of people who have absolutely no oversight, direction or accountability to the lives they control or the deaths they cause. No transparency is Old Kentucky Home ideals. Kentucky needs to evolve and put families first and show we all deserve second chances and fair chances.

Karen Brown has been incarcerated since Feb '86. Brown received a serve-out by the Ky Parole Bd in 2021 despite an impeccable record. She is currently the longest continuously incarcerated female in the state of Kentucky.

Case in point. Karen Brown, seen here is currently the longest continuously incarcerated female in the state of Kentucky. She has been locked up since February 1986, given a life sentence with a possibility of parole after 25 years with the presumption of rehabilitation, or so one would think. No prior record, no history of violence, good report from staff, 100+ programs completed, 7 advanced degrees, including a master’s in education, 100+ community letters of support, leading prison music ministry and worship services for over a quarter century, with an impeccable institutional record and a solid re-entry plan was given 2 deferrals by the Ky Parole Board before given a

‘serve-out’ in 2021. One parole board member during the hearing where she received the ‘serve-out’, noted the impressive community support and solid re-entry plan presented. This occurred at what appeared to be a spike of ‘serve-outs’ but what were the criteria to deserve such a fate? Did the Ky Parole Board believe no one who has committed a violent crime deserves parole? No, in fact double murderers with poor institutional records were released that same year. Is the Ky Parole Board saying that every new hearing brings only one matter, the seriousness of the crime? The Ky Parole Board released a woman who was convicted for killing her husband by stabbing him 75 times and was allegedly paid to execute a ‘hit’ on another inmate. This same Board released a woman in 2020 sentenced in 1987 to life with parole for a robbery, burglary and double murder of her mother and stepfather. Also releasing a woman in 2018 with a sentence to life in prison without the possibility for parole for 25 years for kidnapping, robbery, rape and strangulation.

Jerry Guenthner highlighted in The Christian Science Monitor Weekly earlier this month.

The history of the Ky Parole Board is littered with inconsistencies and perceptions of backroom deals. Look at Jerry Guenthner, from Louisville who was recently highlighted in The Christian Science Monitor Weekly about his transformation primarily through his involvement in Shakespeare Behind Bars.

During the same February 1986 as Karen Brown’s involvement in her crime, Jerry Guenthner killed an undercover cop during a drug sting. According to an article written by Gaye Holman in LEO, August of 2018, one of Jerry’s parole hearings was held in front of two parole board members, both of which were ex-cops. Another member of the board requested Jerry be heard by the entire parole board, but the chairman of the parole board denied the request. That does not sound like an objective look at one’s record or by any means fair or just towards Jerry, no matter what rehabilitation had taken place.

Karen Brown’s charge was violent in ‘name’ only for being present for the homicide which is also known as ‘felony murder’ in many states. This simply means being involved in a crime where a murder has taken place, but that person did not commit the act (of murder). Jerry Guenthner served out his sentence of 65 years with ‘earned credit’ or ‘good time’ for programming and changes he’s made in his life through the programming the Ky Department of Corrections had to offer. Jerry spent his first few years overseeing the flow of drugs on the yard, while running a loan shark operation and gambling ring prior to making his transformation. Karen Brown was offered the opportunity for parole after 25 years, began her transformation while still in the Fayette Co Detention Center. Despite the approaching of the 40th anniversary, and a serve-out, she has afforded one minor infraction, and as a staple to the institution, continuing with her spiritual and educational growth, sharing those jewels with those who most need it.

It’s time we take a look at the crumbling of our Old Kentucky Home and continue to build this foundation for the New Kentucky Home Governor Beshear keeps pointing us to. People deserve a second chance. People deserve a fair chance. Transformation and change deserve to not only to be acknowledged but rewarded. This Kentucky Parole Board should not be the Kentucky Re-Sentencing Board; people are given the opportunity to change and pay their debt to society. Let’s allow them that. Resistance to parole reforms is costing the families of the Commonwealth. We can’t rely on merely clemency as a safety valve of relief on a five-fold increase in our incarceration rates with an aging population. Like Governor Andy Beshear, promoting our New Kentucky Home says “all eyes are on Kentucky”, let’s show them what we got! Let’s make this right.

#NewKyHome #KyFreeKarenBrown #ClemencyNow