Constitutional Law: Parole Status

In Rose v. Haskins,' the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reiterated the orthodox view that since a prisoner parole system is not constitutionally compelled, parole status is merely a "privilege" regulated by statute and not circumscribed by either the specific constitutional guarantees applicable to a criminal proceeding nor the traditional safeguards of procedural due process. However, recent Supreme Court decisions have so undercut the basic assumptions surrounding the "privilege" concept that the analyses and conclusions of Rose and its predecessors have been rendered highly questionable. In 1964, petitioner Rose was paroled from concurrent sentences for conviction of forgery and passage of valueless checks. However, the Ohio Paroles Commission summarily revoked its grant when petitioner's ex-wife accused him of the molestation of their minor daughter. Upon rejection of his request tobe prosecuted on the molestation charge, Rose instituted a habeas corpus action attacking the constitutional validity of his confinement based upon revocation of parole without a hearing, claiming violation of his rights under the fourth, sixth, eighth, thirteenth and fourteenth amendments. Denied relief first in Ohio and then by a United States district court, Rose filed his appeal with the Sixth Circuit. In affirming the decision below, the court concluded that parole status is merely a "privilege" granted by the grace of the state, and not a "right" protected by procedural due process. It was further emphasized that the procedural safeguards