In today's era of judicial decision-making guidelines and determinate sentencing systems, the future prospects for parole at the federal and state levels are increasingly unclear. The Supreme Court, in Greenholtz v. North Carolina (1979) and Board of Pardons v. Allen (1987) has offered a view of parole decision-making that emphasizes board members' projections concerning the societal risk posed by any given parolee. However, numerous empirical research studies have documented the importance of offense severity evaluations and other retributive judgements that are often negatively correlated with risk assessment. This article presents a way to integrate various conceptions of parole according to the broader sentencing framework within which board members operate. Implications for due process requirements at parole hearings and guidelines reform efforts are also discussed.