Parole Board addressing ways to reconcile penalties

[Susan Martin]

Parole Board addressing ways to reconcile penalties

07/19/03

Ted Wendling
Plain Dealer Bureau


Columbus- Paris Valles has served nearly nine years in prison on a 1994 conviction in Cuyahoga County for attempted felonious assault.

His maximum sentence would be eight years if convicted today on the more serious crime of felonious assault.

After complaining for years that such disparities are unjust, defense lawyers and inmate advocates who attended a public hearing this week on a proposed rule change thanked prison and Parole Board officials for addressing the inequity.

Or the perception of the inequity, depending on who's doing the perceiving.

The new rule would require the Parole Board to compare the indefinite sentences being served by so-called old-law inmates with the definite sentences meted out to inmates since passage of Ohio's 1996 "truth in sentencing" law.

"The Department of Corrections is to be applauded for taking a step towards curing this systemic flaw in our criminal justice system . . . " Barry Wilford of the Ohio Criminal Defense Lawyers Association wrote in a letter read by hearing officer James Guy. "Such consideration is right, it is fair and - God knows - it is time to take this important step."

Even the prison system's most strident critic, Canton lawyer Norman Sirak, wrote to congratulate the board for its "very fine piece of work." Sirak has accused the Parole Board of various sentencing inequities in a class-action lawsuit.

But in an interview after the hearing Thursday, Parole Board Chairman Gary Croft said the new rule would merely codify what the Parole Board has done for years. When deciding whether to parole any of Ohio's 15,000 old-law inmates, Croft said, the board always considers the equivalent sentences meted out since July 1, 1996.

Croft also disputed recent comments by his predecessor, Margarette Ghee, that the board is less conservative today than when she retired in April 2002.

"It may be the perception that we're kinder and gentler, but I think we're right in the middle," Croft said.

That perception stems largely from an Ohio Supreme Court decision in December that ordered the board to stop giving old-law prisoners extra time by placing them in more serious offense categories than their convictions warranted. As a result, hundreds of prisoners are being paroled following new hearings.

"Ohio is a very conservative state, and our prisoners did a whole lot of time," Ghee said. "The board's not as conservative now, and maybe that's a good thing."

The proposed rule change, which needs approval by state prison authorities, requires the Parole Board to consider equivalent, post-1996 sentences and 17 other factors by replacing the word "may" with "shall." The other factors include the inmate's family status, employment history and occupational skills and the availability of community resources.


To reach this Plain Dealer reporter:

twendling@plaind.com, 1-800-228-8272




© 2003 The Plain Dealer. Used with permission.

Copyright 2003 cleveland.com. All Rights Reserved.

[bebopp7]

I sent this article above to my friend John who is an activist and works with an attorney to change the parole guidelines here is his reply

Patti,
Thanks for sharing this. This was the DORC "agency" hearing for JCARR I had e-mailed around information on a few weeks ago. I didn't like the set up where, instead of being before the real JCARR at the Statehouse, they let DORC handle it "in house."
The copy I got from JCARR followed legislative format. What was being changed in the proposal--in fact the only thing being changed--is that all of the positive factors which "may be considered" (the wording was "may," not "shall") are being deleted. As if in practice they weren't being ignored to begin with. Left in, "shall" consider all the bad points. That really, in a nutshell, is the proposed changes. How anyone, other than a DORC/APA afflilate or cheerleader, could view that as "a positive step," is beyond me.
I found it interesting that a letter from Bob Woodman was mentioned. Bob heads the law library in NCCI, was in OCI when I was in there. One day he came in and asked if I could show him how to do legal work and legal research. Really, about the last one I did while still a prisoner. We ended up working together on some legal projects, and he is quite good at what he does. He also writes for Challenger, I'd refer you to his series on "realpolitick," and, yes, he is working with me on prison/parole reform issues other than legal proceedings, even if his involvement may be somewhat limited.
Thanks for sharing this. Of course, I'm interested in what kind of comments or consensus you're seeing from what you''ve sent.
John

[Susan Martin]

Your friend is in error about all the positive things being ommited and only negative points left.....have you personally read the proposed AR changes? I have.
The language change in the proposed change was not more negative than the original AR. Also part (C) that was deleted was redundent as it had already been stated in the updated section prior to section (C). In addition to that it was written in that the parole board was to consider SB 2 sentencing when reviewing old law inmates where as before that was not part of the AR.
The parole board retains the authority to depart form the guidelines due to other factors. That part I'm not happpy about but you can't expect too many changes too fast.

I've previously posted the link to the proposed AR changes in a topic here in somewhere.

I've also alerady posted an email from Jana Schroder of Cure OH who attended the meeting and reported what happened and how she viewed the changes.