Rejection Board: South Carolina granted parole to 4% of applicants in 2024

“Have a seat please, and tell us what we can do for you today.” 

This is the kind of greeting parole seekers receive in South Carolina when they sit down to discuss their chance at freedom. But the warm welcome belies a cold, harsh statistic. 

In 2024, South Carolina granted parole to 4% of applicants, or 25 out of 3,000 people. Prison Policy Initiative rates South Carolina as the lowest of the 35 states that grant discretionary parole, which allows people to leave prison before their sentence is complete. It’s so low that one lawyer who works on parole cases nicknamed the parole board the “rejection board," reported the Prison Journalism Project.

Even as parole rates have plummeted across the country in recent years, South Carolina remains an extreme outlier. Nearby Southern states grant parole at much higher rates, including Georgia (28%), Alabama (20%) and Mississippi (49%).  

Shifting criteria

What does it take to win freedom via parole in South Carolina?

James T. had what he thought was a promising application. He was officially deemed “minimal risk” to reoffend and had no disciplinary record, and that wasn’t all. “I had five character witnesses, a home plan, job plan, no write-ups and I still got turned down,” he said.

Most prisoners I spoke to said they received a standard form letter that stipulated the primary reason for denial as “the nature and severity of the crime.”

“Tell me just how I’m supposed to change the nature of my crime?” asked James T., who was convicted of aggravated assault. “They can use that so-called reason ’til doomsday. No matter what programs I take or how perfect my conduct is, it won’t change what I did.” 

In fact, 27 of the 35 state parole boards use “nature or severity of crime” as a primary reason to deny parole, according to Prison Policy Initiative, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization that researches the U.S. prison system. It is only superseded by one’s “criminal history”  — which includes one’s history of incarceration, supervision and arrests.

No one I spoke to argues that it’s unreasonable for the parole board to ask applicants to demonstrate that they have “reformed” and will lead a productive life if paroled. The problem, they said, is the vague and subjective criteria used by the parole board to make their decision. 

“We’ve found that in practically every state, parole boards cite a denial based not just on the nature of the crime but [on the idea] that to grant parole would diminish the severity [of the crime] and promote a disrespect for law and order,” said Brian Scott, director of Our Journey, a North Carolina-based transition service for people released from prison. “It’s all just rhetoric.”

‘They answer to nobody but themselves’

South Carolina’s parole board considers at least 15 criteria when granting parole, according to a memo from the state Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services. Good conduct while in prison, participation in programs, education and treatment (such as for substance abuse and addiction) are touted as central to parole decisions. 

Billy D. checked all of those boxes.

“I plum ran out of programs to take years ago,” he said with a chuckle. “I took every class, got a college degree in business that’s not worth the paper it’s printed on, and have been in recovery for over 20 years.” 

Billy D. is an accredited HVAC technician and has a commercial driver’s license and carpentry certificate, along with a record of serving as a peer support specialist to others in recovery. 

“It really don’t make any difference to the parole board of South Carolina,” said Billy D., who was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, breaking and entering, larceny and driving under the influence. “They do what they want. They answer to nobody but themselves.” 

While South Carolina does give you the standard form citing the reason for their parole denial, they do not explain the reasoning.

Each member of the state parole board is appointed by the governor for a six-year term. There are no term limits. The board has more independence than most parole boards as they control not only parole, but all pardons in the state — South Carolina is one of only a few states where the governor cannot grant pardons.

When denied parole, your lawyer can request a parole reconsideration, but it must be filed within 15 days of the denial, according to a manual from the South Carolina Board of Pardons and Paroles. Reconsideration is far from guaranteed. Your lawyer must prove to the board that they can provide additional pertinent information that the board did not have during the hearing, or that the board based their decision on “erroneous information.” I have not heard of a case in which someone has had their denial reversed. 

Some reformers have argued for replacing discretionary parole with presumptive parole. Presumptive parole means that a prisoner would automatically be granted parole if they met certain criteria, usually involving good behavior, completed programming and a certain amount of time served. These advocates have argued that greater use of presumptive parole, as has been adopted in states such as New Jersey and Vermont, would free up parole boards to devote more time to complex parole hearings.

Still, as long as public officials fear being painted as soft on crime, the prospect of parole reform remains unlikely.

To read more CLICK HERE

CREATORS: No More Mandatory Life for Felony Murder in Pennsylvania

Matthew T. Mangino
CREATORS
March 31, 2026

A 2021 report by the Philadelphia Lawyers for Social Equity found that there were 8,242 people serving life without parole (LWOP), or virtual life sentences of 50 or more years in Pennsylvania, the second-highest number not only in the country, but around the world.

Over 1,100 of those sentenced to life without parole were the result of the state's second-degree murder — "felony murder" — statute. That number may begin to decline.

Last week, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled it is unconstitutional to require mandatory life sentences without parole for people convicted of felony murder. The key to that ruling is "mandatory."

Under the law, anyone convicted of participating in a felony that results in death — such as a robbery — receives an automatic life sentence, even if the person didn't commit the killing or intend for anyone to die.

Life sentences will still be allowed for second-degree murder on a case-by-case basis, but the state high court said mandatory life violates the state constitution's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, but Pennsylvania has its own constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments — Article I, Section 13.

Across the country few states still impose mandatory life without parole. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, in light of the ruling in Pennsylvania, only Louisiana has mandatory LWOP for a felony murder conviction

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reasoned that "a mandatory life without parole sentence for all felony murder convictions, absent an assessment of culpability, is inconsistent with the protections bestowed upon our citizens" under Article I, Section 13.

Recognizing the gravity of a life without parole sentence, the court wrote, "Life without parole imposes the harshest imprisonment sanction permitted under the law — imprisonment until death without the opportunity for consideration of release — regardless of culpability."

The decision will have a significant impact, and as a result, the court stayed the imposition of the ruling for 120 days to allow the Pennsylvania legislature to remedy the unconstitutional sentencing scheme through legislation.

The most pressing question is, will the decision be retroactive? If so, how does retroactivity affect the sentences of people already behind bars? How lawmakers approach that process — and what remedies they might settle on — could be the subject of intense debate.

According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, options could include seeking resentencing hearings for every person already convicted under the law, to more narrow approaches that might invite additional questions — and litigation — about how to apply the new finding to cases that were decided decades ago.

In addition, what will be the sentencing scheme for felony murder in future cases? As the court made clear, LWOP is still an option. But what are the options short of LWOP? The legislature will have to set the parameters and have only 120 days to do it.

Marsha Levick, the Phyllis Beck chair at Temple University's Beasley School of Law, and former chief legal officer of the Philadelphia-based Juvenile Law Center, coauthored briefs in a series of cases that struck down mandatory life sentences for juvenile offenders, and said Pennsylvania's high court in this case appeared to be positioning its ruling for retroactive application — even if it stopped short of saying so.

Levick told the Philadelphia Inquirer that the opinion echoes the reasoning the U.S. Supreme Court used to make similar decisions retroactive in juvenile cases, though she cautioned that "we're going to have to wait for action."

According to the Pennsylvania Capital-Star, if no legislation is passed, or a bill is approved that doesn't address existing life sentences, that will likely kick the issue back to the courts. And that could result in further delay for those subject to unconstitutional sentences.

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book, "The Executioner's Toll," 2010, was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino

To visit Creators CLICK HERE

SCOTUS will soon hear what may be the most important case since the Civil War

 Garrett Epps writes in the Washington Monthly:

On April 1, the Supreme Court will hear Trump v. Barbara, which will test the theory that the president, with the stroke of a pen, can strip millions of American-born children of the birthright citizenship the Constitution grants them. 

The birthright citizenship case is easily the most important case that will come before the Court this year. I’ll add: Barbara may be the most important case the Court hears in this century.  

It may be the most important case the Court has heard since the Civil War. 

Epps sums up the issue like this:

The first sentence of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Since the amendment’s adoption in 1868, these words have applied to those born in the U.S.—except for two classes: First, children born to the families of foreign diplomats, whose diplomatic immunity means they are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S.; and, second, children born to members of Native American nations living on reservations, who were, in 1868, not “subject to the jurisdiction” because, by treaty, they could not be arrested or sued in federal court. (This provision was undone by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.) The birthright of all other American-born children has been recognized by the Supreme Court for 125 years and by Congress since at least 1940.  

To read more CLICK HERE

PA Supreme Court strikes down mandatory LWOP for felony murder

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled it’s unconstitutional to require mandatory life sentences without parole for people convicted of felony murder, The Pennsylvania Capital-Star.

“Life without parole imposes the harshest imprisonment sanction permitted under the law ─ imprisonment until death without the opportunity for consideration of release ─ regardless of culpability,” Chief Justice Debra Todd wrote in the majority opinion. “Due to this scheme’s mandatory nature and its unique severity, it poses a great risk of disproportionate punishment.” 

Life sentences will still be allowed for second-degree murder on a case-by case-basis, but Todd writes that it violates the state constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment to mandate it in all cases.

The decision was near-unanimous, with only one judge, Justice Kevin Brobson, dissenting in part.

But what the ruling means for the more than 1,000 Pennsylvanians serving life sentences without parole on felony murder charges is still unclear.

The ruling gives the general assembly 120 days to come up with a legislative fix to the state’s sentencing laws, but that could take many different shapes. And it will likely kick off what could be the largest resentencing effort the commonwealth has ever taken, though the timeline will depend on decisions made by lawmakers.

To read more CLICK HERE

Balko: 'You know we’re lying. We know that you know we’re lying. And there isn’t a goddamn thing you can do about it'

 The Watch by Radley Balko on substack:

For me, it became clear that we were in a uniquely dangerous era after the shooting of Marimar Martinez and the killing of Silverio Villegas-Gonzalez in Chicago. I’m pretty jaded about these things, but I was jarred at how the administration openly gloated and shamelessly lied about the use of lethal force by DHS against people who posed no threat. It only got worse after the murders of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis. The lies the administration told after those killings aren’t the lies you tell to cover something up. They’re the lies you tell when you want to project to the country that you can get away with anything. The lies themselves are their own display of authoritarianism. The government is telling us, “You know we’re lying. We know that you know we’re lying. And there isn’t a goddamn thing you can do about it.”

To read more CLICK HERE

Mangino appears on Law and Crime's Scandal with Sierra Gillespie

Watch my interview with Sierra Gillespie of Law and Crime's Scandal to discuss the horrific murder in Wales of a mother by her 18-year-old son.

To watch the interview CLICK HERE

Mangino discusses verdict in Meta and You Tube trial

Watch my interview with Lindsay McCoy on WFMJ-TV21 regarding landmark California social media suit.

To watch the interview CLICK HERE