Pubdate: Wed, 27 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, Houston Chronicle READERS' RULINGS ECHO BOARD VOTES Some participants in an exercise involving parole requests managed to pin down their decisions only after considerable mental wrestling. "I think of myself as pretty hard-line," said Pam O., who surprised herself upon realizing she had voted to grant three paroles. Others found it easier to make their rulings: "I think all three should do the full time given to them by the judge or jury handling their case," wrote Ron G., who further opined that all paroling should be stopped. The exercise offered here a week ago provided us each with an opportunity to try on the shoes of a member of the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. We were invited to consider three sample cases that were provided by the three board members over the division that includes Harris County. These samples were based upon actual cases, with enough changes to protect the identities of the people involved. And board member Cynthia Tauss pointed out that the sketches didn't provide nearly as much information as is found in complete parole files upon which actual decisions are based. But she considered the details that were included in each of the samples the most important facts for determining whether the inmate should be paroled or kept in prison. Space considerations today required even further condensing of the cases, but anyone interested can access previous columns, including last week's, at the Chronicle Web site: www.chron.com. Clear-Cut Decisions For Most Case No. 1 is 36, in for burglary this time. He's been in the pen before, twice paroled, twice revoked. He has completed education and counseling programs. In the 1997 burglary, he entered an elderly couple's home, grabbed the woman around the neck while holding a knife. He was disoriented and confused and put on the woman's bathing suit. The woman's husband talked him into releasing her and putting down the knife. Of those who e-mailed responses to the exercise, 80 percent voted against parole for No. 1. Tauss said the parole board also voted against parole. No. 2, who is 21, originally was given three years' probation in April 1997. He and a co-defendant were charged with robbing a woman of her purse. In June 1999, the probation was revoked for technical violations and enhanced to seven years in prison. He's not involved in gangs, has finished self-improvement courses and has stable release plans. He has a daughter living with his parents. The vote by respondents for No. 2 was just the reverse of the No. 1 vote -- 80 percent said No. 2 deserves parole. The parole board also voted for parole in this case, Tauss said. No. 3 is 29. He got seven years' probation in 1993 for delivery of cocaine, but that probation was revoked the following year, when he got seven years in prison for forcing sexual intercourse on a 13-year-old at least three times by threatening her life. He has strong family support, has always lived with his mother and has never held a driver's license. Diagnosed with mild mental retardation, he has an IQ of 66. But he is a high school graduate and will seek employment in the construction field. He has not participated in any self-improvement programs. A Difficult Dilemma A major difficulty in deciding this case lies in the fact he is due to be discharged in February 2002, and after serving his full sentence he would be released without supervision or treatment. On the other hand, if paroled before his entire sentence is served, he can be ordered into street supervision and sex-offender treatment programs. The majority of respondents -- 54 percent -- opposed parole; 44 percent favored it. You may notice that doesn't add up to 100 percent. That is because some who were able to decide on the first two cases found they could not reach a decision on the third. "This is a harder one," wrote N.M. "It would require further investigation before I could decide. I need to know: Does he know right from wrong?" But in this case as in the other two, although by a narrower margin, the majority of respondents matched the decision of the official board members. The board decided against parole. Many who responded included interesting opinions about what the conditions of parole should be. Jacob W., for example, cited a 20-year- old study that he said demonstrated that when parolees were required to eat well-balanced diets, it drastically reduced the recidivism rate. - --- MAP posted-by: John Chase