Utah Board of Pardons & Parole

Factors Considered in Decision Making

When the Board makes a decision after a hearing, their starting point is the court-ordered total minimum sentence.  From there, the Board considers sentencing guidelines established by the Utah Sentencing Commission, as well as all information that sets each case and offender apart from others convicted of the same or similar crimes.

The following are examples of factors considered by the Board that are typically unique to each offender and related criminal activity:

  • The minimum, maximum, concurrent and consecutive sentences imposed by the court
  • The specific facts of the crime and criminal behavior
  • Comments, notes, or recommendations from the sentencing court
  • Offender's risk to the victim or the general public, based on current and past behavior
  • The type, effects, and extent of injuries to the victim
  • Whether the crimes and criminal conduct showed cruelty or depravity
  • Whether the offender abused a position of trust or responsibility in connection to committing the crime
  • Whether the victim was a child or was otherwise particularly vulnerable
  • Offender risk assessments
  • Psychological, psychiatric, psycho-sexual, competency, or other mental health reports
  • Whether weapons were used in the offense
  • The number of victims
  • Whether the crimes were committed for personal gain, and the damages to the victims
  • The reasons the individual committed the crime
  • The individual's role in the crime (was the person the leader or organizer, or simply a follower or minimal actor)
  • The individual's conduct after the offense (did the person lie, hide evidence, withhold information, or flee - or did the person surrender and not commit any other crimes)
  • Whether the individual's criminal history is significantly more serious than what is included in the sentencing guidelilne calculation
  • Whether the individual has a history of similar offenses
  • Whether the individual's criminal conduct is increasing or decreasing in seriousness and severity
  • How the individual has performed under a previous probation or parole supervision experience
  • The individual's behavior while incarcerated
  • Reports or recommendations from the Department of Corrections, including reports concerning programming, treatment, education, work assignments, or disciplinary violations during the individual's incarceration
  • Victim impact statements, reports, letters, or testimony
  • Whether the individual health, medical, or. other needs or situations that mitigate in favor of release
  • Whether other states or agencies have placed detainers and whether an individual will serve additional prison sentences
  • Information regarding the individual submitted by the individual or on the individual's behalf by family, friends, treatment professionals, employers, defense attorneys, or prosecutors
  • The individual's remorse and acceptance of responsibility for the criminal behavior
  • The individual's efforts to pay restitution
  • The individual's efforts at improvement, and good behavior after the crime and during incarceration
  • Whether the individual successfully completed their Case Action Plan or Board-required programming/treatment while incarcerated
  • Whether the individual requires additional treatment or programming to increase the likelihood of living a crime-free life and decrease the chance of returning to prison
  • The length of the offender's substance or alcohol use or abuse compared to the individual's efforts to overcome that use or abuse
  • Whether the offender has good, positive community support (family members, friends, etc.,), a place to live, and possible employment

The Board may view each of these factors as aggravating (negative for the individual) or mitigating (positive for the individual) when making an evaluation and comparing the totality of the individual’s behavior and public safety risk with others whose sentences are the same, but whose conduct, risks, and efforts at improvement may be very different.

The Board also considers these factors so that an individualized decision regarding each offender is specific to that individual.  For example, the sentencing guideline for a 2nd degree felony burglary following a home invasion could be the same as the sentencing guideline for a second theft of a motor vehicle – yet the crimes and public safety impact are very different.

Not all of these factors are or will be present in every situation – and no single factor is controlling.  The Board doesn’t simply compare or “total” these factors.  Each of them are considered and weighed as the Board as a whole and individual Board Members determine whether, and when, to grant a prison release.

Scroll to Top