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