Court Opinion

ID: 9787352
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 00:15:10.030438+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:55.167234
License: Public Domain

MATTHEWS, Justice,
with whom FABE, Chief Justice, joins, concurring.
I agree with the rationale and the result of today's opinion. But I think that our decision in Division of Corrections v. Neakol!' should be overruled rather than merely distinguished and questioned.
We will overrule a prior decision when we are "clearly convinced that the rule was originally erroneous or is no longer sound because of changed conditions, and that more good than harm would result from a departure from precedent."" In my view this standard has been met regarding Neakok. The decision in that case as to the duty to impose parole conditions is not sound, in my opinion, because it imposes liability for decisions that are inherently discretionary as they involve balancing the sometimes conflicting goals of rehabilitation and protection of the public. Like initial sentencing decisions, this is an area where state officials should not be second-guessed in a tort trial. The result of Neakok, I believe, has been to cause corrections officials to err on the side of restrictiveness when considering discretionary parole. Today's opinion recognizes these problems in the context of juvenile justice and recognizes that they may also apply to adult corrections.
In my judgment, we should frankly recognize that Neakok is unsound and overrule it rather than allow it to continue to work its mischief.