Are there any legal jurisdictions where members of parole boards are accountable for crimes committed by parolees?
<p>It <a href="https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/parole-board-saw-high-risk-of-violence-in-myles-sanderson-but-approved-his-release-anyway" rel="noreferrer">has been reported that spree killer Myles Sanderson was previously released on parole</a> despite having been convicted of a large number of violent offences.</p>
<p>Since it is hardly the first time that this has happened, I was wondering if there are any legal jurisdictions where parole board members can be held legally liable for the actions of the people that they parole? If so, what is their level of liability?</p>

<p>In <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/arizona/supreme-court/1977/12775-pr-0.html" rel="noreferrer">Grimm v. Arizona Bd. of Pardons &amp; Paroles</a>, 115 Ariz. 260 defendants were found liable for &quot;grossly negligent and reckless release of prisoner Mitchell Thomas Blazak&quot; resulting in death. That case led to a significant holding,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>we now abolish the absolute immunity previously granted to public
officials in their discretionary functions</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In <a href="https://casetext.com/case/tarter-v-state-of-new-york" rel="noreferrer">Tarter v. NY</a>, 113 A.D.2d 587, liability was found for release of a convict who then injured a person: the board negligently failed to follow statutory criteria and the board's own guidelines, not acting &quot;in accordance with law&quot;.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>With respect to the decision by the parole board to release a
prisoner, the statute directs that certain factors and criteria be
considered, mandates that the parole board follow guidelines
established for that purpose, and provides that any determination is
deemed a judicial function and shall not be reviewable if done in
accordance with law</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The key here is that states may have laws governing the release of prisoners, so parole is not a purely discretionary act, there may be statutory limits.</p>

<p>In the <a href="/questions/tagged/united-states" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="united-states-container">united-states</a>, parole board members are generally considered to be carrying out a quasi-judicial function, i.e., determining an appropriate sentence for a defendant, and therefore entitled to judicial immunity.</p>
<p>Judicial immunity operates as a complete bar to civil liability for monetary damages, so the board would essentially have no exposure to liability.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Judges enjoy absolute immunity from civil rights suits in order to keep the judicial decision-making process pristine. ... Just as the decision-making process of judges must be kept free from fear, so must that of parole board officials. Without this protection, there is the same danger that the decision-maker might not impartially adjudicate the often difficult cases that come before them. If parole board officials had to anticipate that each time they rejected a prisoner's application for parole, they would have to defend that decision in federal court, their already difficult task of balancing the risk involved in releasing a prisoner whose rehabilitation is uncertain against the public's right to safety would become almost impossible.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="https://casetext.com/case/sellars-v-procunier" rel="noreferrer"><em>Sellars v. Procunier</em>, 641 F.2d 1295, 1303 (9th Cir. 1981)</a>.</p>
<p>Parole board members whose errors proximately cause an injury to a third party would therefore likely be exposed to punishment only through criminal law or adverse employment consequences.</p>

criminal-law liability