Ohio Northern University Law Review


This article looks critically at the indeterminate sentencing system that survived after the elimination of parole in Arizona in 1993. It begins by exploring the purpose and history of indeterminate sentencing and parole as well as its earliest constitutional challenges and eventual decline. Next it compares two commonly confused forms of “release”: parole and executive clemency. The article then examines the three types of defendants affected by indeterminate sentences without parole: death row defendants denied parole eligibility instructions at trial, defendants sentenced with parole at trial, and defendants whose plea agreement includes parole. Finally, the article argues that without parole, indeterminate sentencing systems like the one used in Arizona should be ruled unconstitutional.