The article, produced in collaboration with ProPublica’s Local Reporting Network and Verite News, outlines the impact of a new law in Louisiana that significantly restricts parole eligibility. Governor Jeff Landry spearheaded this legislation, which emphasizes the use of a computerized algorithm called TIGER to assess parole suitability, limiting the decision-making power of the parole board.
Key highlights of the report include:
Parole Restrictions: The new law introduced by Governor Landry transfers significant authority from the parole board to an algorithm, barring thousands of inmates from early release.
Risk Assessment Tool: The algorithm, TIGER, assigns risk scores that disregard prisoners’ rehabilitative efforts, focusing on immutable factors.
- Racial Disparities: Civil rights advocates argue the law may disproportionately affect Black individuals due to pre-existing racial biases in the factors considered by the algorithm.
The case of Calvin Alexander exemplifies the challenges posed by the current system. Despite fulfilling all parole board requirements through various programs, Alexander was deemed ineligible for parole two months before his hearing due to his moderate risk score. This decision has left him and many others without the opportunity to appeal to the board, as the score derived from the algorithm now plays a decisive role in parole eligibility.
The change in Louisiana’s parole law aligns with a broader crime policy shift, advocated by Governor Landry, focusing on harsher sentences and reduced avenues for early release. Previously, parole was an assumed part of sentencing, but recent legislation eliminates it for most crimes committed after August 1, positioning Louisiana as the seventeenth state in 50 years to do so.
Experts express concern over the TIGER algorithm’s sole authority in parole decisions. They point out that while such tools help estimate group reoffense probabilities, they cannot accurately predict individual behavior. This reliance on a static risk score is further critiqued for potentially infringing on constitutional rights, as it retroactively intensifies the consequences of a criminal sentence.
The article suggests the new legislation may exacerbate racial disparities, as the risk assessment gives significant weight to static factors, such as criminal history and employment opportunities, which historically disadvantage Black and low-income populations. With Black individuals constituting nearly two-thirds of Louisiana’s incarcerated population, these measures may deepen existing inequities.
Former parole board members also oppose the law’s undermining of human judgment by over-relying on an algorithm. They argue that personal achievements in prison, such as participation in self-improvement programs, which were considered in parole decisions, are no longer impactful.
Despite intended efficiency claims by the bill’s proponent, Sen. Patrick McMath, data indicates declining parole hearing rates, suggesting that the law does not alleviate backlog issues as purported. The appointment of new parole board members by Governor Landry, who have not commented on the TIGER tool’s implications, also reflects the administration’s ongoing commitment to this reform.
This policy shift means individuals like Alexander will remain in prison, unable to personally present their rehabilitation progress to the board. The article concludes with Alexander’s family expressing concern over his health and uncertainty about his future after being denied parole.
