Subsection (3) restyled.

Subsections (1) through (3) are largely self-explanatory and adopt a procedure for parole determination which affords the prisoner an opportunity to participate and be heard. The procedure also provides for periodic review of the prisoner's case.

In the Proposed Draft, §670 provided for an automatic period of parole, the length of which would vary with the prisoner's initial period of incarceration, but which would not be greater than ten years, and which would be required in every case following an indeterminate term of imprisonment. The Legislature did not accept this proposal in its entirety. Thus, subsection (4) now requires a prisoner's unconditional release at the expiration of the prisoner's maximum term of imprisonment. The Legislature felt that to impose "an additional term of parole would be an unfair burden to a person who has paid his debt to society." Conference Committee Report No. 2 (1972).

Subsection (5) provides that the maximum term of parole shall be ten years. In this area, as in terms of imprisonment, the Code leaves with the Board of Paroles and Pardons the task of determining the minimum term of parole.

Subsection (6) provides for a hearing on revocation of parole which affords the parolee fair notice, representation, and assistance, much in the same manner as that provided in the case of hearings on the minimum term and initial parole.

Subsection (8) provides for unconditional discharge of the defendant when the maximum term of parole has expired or upon sooner release by the Board.

Act 30, Session Laws 1983, amended subsection (1) to change the maximum term of recommittal for a parole violator from ten years to the remainder of the parolee's original, maximum sentence. It was felt that a parole violator should not be relieved of any part of the court-imposed maximum sentence. However, the legislature intended that the paroling authority periodically reconsider the parole of any recommitted parolee. Senate Standing Committee Report No. 357 (1983), House Standing Committee Report No. 811.

Act 257, Session Laws 1984, added a new subsection (2) to allow the paroling authority, as a condition of parole, to prohibit a parolee from entering certain geographical areas without the paroling authority's permission.

Act 282, Session Laws 1988, amended this section to allow the prosecuting attorney to appear and present oral comment and written testimony at parole hearings before the Hawaii paroling authority, disallowing oral testimony by witnesses. Senate Conference Committee Report No. 270, House Conference Committee Report No. 96-88.

Act 101, Session Laws 1993, amended subsection (4) of this section to clarify that a grant of parole is not subject to the acceptance of the person being paroled. Inmates who refuse parole and choose to remain in prison take up valuable bedspace in already crowded correctional facilities, and the State loses the opportunity to assist in reintegrating them back into the community. House Standing Committee Report No. 1123, Senate Standing Committee Report No. 839.

Act 201, Session Laws 1993, amended subsection (3) of this section to provide that prisoners who have been granted parole are to be paroled in the county where the prisoner had a permanent residence or occupation or employment prior to incarceration, unless the prisoner will reside in a county having a population exceeding 800,000 persons, or will be released for immediate departure from the State. The legislature found that this would prevent an influx of parolees whose roots are on Oahu from settling on the Neighbor Islands, which could strain a county's social service infrastructure. Conference Committee Report No. 104.

Act 193, Session Laws 1996, amended this section by providing that the prosecuting attorney shall have the right to be represented at the initial parole hearing and all subsequent parole hearings, and that the prosecuting attorney shall have reasonable notice of the reconsideration or rehearing of parole cases by the Hawaii paroling authority. The Act made clear the prosecuting attorney's right to be represented and to receive notice, since the current law was unclear regarding the prosecuting attorney's rights on these matters. Conference Committee Report No. 60.

As §353-66 and this section can be given effect without conflict, subsection (7) is not the "exclusive" law governing parole revocations, does not embrace the entire law on the subject, and does not repeal §353-66 by implication. 88 H. 229 (App.), 965 P.2d 162.

A petitioner is not entitled to relief for Hawaii paroling authority’s failure to comply with time limit specified in subsection (7) for parole revocation hearing unless record shows that failure to comply (1) was unreasonable and (2) caused petitioner actual prejudice. State’s failure to comply with specified time limit is presumptively unreasonable and it is Hawaii paroling authority’s burden to rebut this presumption; it is petitioner’s burden to prove that State’s unreasonable failure to comply caused actual prejudice to petitioner. 89 H. 474 (App.), 974 P.2d 1064.