Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 329

529US1

Unit: $U40

[10-04-01 09:23:11] PAGES PGT: OPIN

254

GARNER v. JONES

Opinion of the Court

Board’s consideration of numerous factors speciﬁc to an
inmate’s offense, rehabilitative efforts, and ability to live a
responsible, productive life). The essence of respondent’s
case, as we see it, is not that discretion has been changed in
its exercise but that, in the period between parole reviews,
it will not be exercised at all. The statutory structure, its
implementing regulations, and the Parole Board’s unrefuted
representations regarding its operations do not lead to this
conclusion.

The law changing the frequency of parole reviews is quali-
ﬁed in two important respects. First, the law vests the
Parole Board with discretion as to how often to set an in-
mate’s date for reconsideration, with eight years for the max-
imum. See Ga. Rules & Regs., Rule 475–3–.05(2) (1985)
(“Reconsideration . . . shall take place at least every eight
years”). Second, the Board’s policies permit “expedited pa-
role reviews in the event of a change in their circumstance
or where the Board receives new information that would
warrant a sooner review.” App. 56. These qualiﬁcations
permit a more careful and accurate exercise of the discretion
the Board has had from the outset. Rather than being re-
quired to review cases pro forma, the Board may set recon-
sideration dates according to the likelihood that a review will
result in meaningful considerations as to whether an inmate
is suitable for release. The Board’s stated policy is to pro-
vide for reconsideration at 8-year intervals “when, in the
Board’s determination, it is not reasonable to expect that pa-
Ibid.
role would be granted during the intervening years.”
The policy enables the Board to put its resources to better
use, to ensure that those prisoners who should receive parole
come to its attention. By concentrating its efforts on those
cases identiﬁed as having a good possibility of early release,
the Board’s Rules might result in the release of some prison-
ers earlier than would have been the case otherwise.

The particular case of respondent well illustrates that the
Board’s Rule changes are designed for the better exercise of