Pubdate: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 Source: Houston Chronicle (TX) Copyright: 2000 Houston Chronicle Contact: Viewpoints Editor, P.O. Box 4260 Houston, Texas 77210-4260 Fax: (713) 220-3575 Website: http://www.chron.com/ Forum: http://www.chron.com/content/hcitalk/index.html Author: Thom Marshall PAROLE CASES TO TEST OUR JUDGMENT Audience Participation. To give us a feel for some of the work being done by the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, the three board members over the division that includes Harris County provided some sample cases. These were taken from actual cases, with changes that protect the identities of people involved but do not alter the facts on which decisions were based. Board member Cynthia Tauss said actual parole files contain much more information on which to base their decisions, but for purposes of this exercise the details provided in each case are those that are most important in determining whether the prisoner should be paroled. No. 1 is 36 years old. He was sentenced to 10 years for a New Year's Day 1989 burglary. He was paroled in July 1990. Then in December 1994, was revoked. For selling stolen credit cards in July 1992, he got 15 years, and 15 years more for theft of property in August 1993, while out on bond. He was paroled again in December 1996, and revoked again in August 1997, after drawing 15 years for burglary. His past includes assorted other arrests for drugs, assaults and burglary, which were dismissed. He has an extensive drug history. No juvenile arrest history. He has completed his GED and substance abuse programs, and earned a welding certificate. His institutional adjustment is satisfactory. He wishes to be released to his mother and has a job as a welder. Has hepatitis A, B and C, which could affect employment. He has sought psychological counseling for depression resulting from physical and emotional abuse by his father. Important consideration: In the 1997 burglary of a habitation, he entered an elderly couple's home. He grabbed the woman around the neck while holding a knife. He was disoriented and confused. He put on the woman's bikini bathing suit. The woman's husband talked No. 1 into releasing her and putting down the knife. Young And In Trouble No. 2 originally was given three years' probation on a robbery conviction in April 1997. This case involved No. 2 and a co-defendant robbing a woman of her purse as she walked to her car. As a result of technical violations, No. 2's probation was revoked and enhanced to seven years of prison time in June 1999. He is 21, has two prior drug arrests, both dismissed. No juvenile arrest history. He has completed courses in life skills, anger management and computer literacy. No gang involvement. Stable release plans. Stable employment history and realistic job prospects. Limited drug involvement. Satisfactory institutional adjustment. High school graduate. Has a daughter who is living with his parents. No. 3 got seven years' probation in November 1993 for delivery of cocaine, but the probation was revoked the following year and he was sentenced to seven years in prison for aggravated sexual assault of a child. He forced sexual intercourse on a 13-year-old at least three times by threatening her life. She was one of three runaways who had been given refuge at the home of No. 3's sister. He threatened the girl by saying he was a leader in both the Mexican Mafia and the Los Mofiosos gangs and he would have her family harmed. What Would You Do? No. 3 is 29. His prior arrest history is a simple assault that was dismissed. No juvenile history. No prior incarcerations. Denies addiction to drugs. Strong family support. He has never lived apart from his mother nor held a driver's license. He is able to utilize public transportation. He is diagnosed with mild mental retardation, with an IQ of 66. He is a high school graduate and will seek employment in the construction field. He has not participated in any educational, vocational or character development programs. No. 3 began his sentence Feb. 10, 1995, and he will be discharged Feb. 10, 2002. If paroled prior to his discharge date, street supervision and sex offender treatment programs could be ordered. If not paroled, No. 3 would serve his full sentence and be released without supervision or treatment. You can decide whether it should be more prison or parole for each of these men and e-mail your results and comments to me. I'll find out from Tauss the official decisions rendered by the parole board and get back to you right here in one week, provided nothing unexpected comes up to change that plan. Thom Marshall's e-mail address is --- MAP posted-by: Terry Liittschwager