The truth behind ‘the big lie’: What every citizen must learn about Ohio’s ‘Parole’ Board

Raedwulf

Original

Transcript

'Parole' Board Corruption in Ohio By Raedwulf "The Truth Behind 'The Big Lie': What Every Citizen Must Learn About Ohio's 'Parole' Board" Even with more articles on the subject than ever before, most of them miss the mark, because they open with the 'parole' board's very damaging double-whopper: that the remaining 'Old Law' "can't be released" because of "very serious crimes" or because of "their continuing behavior."... We can't seem to get past that and get to the truth, because the interviewer does not stop the 'board's' spokesperson in order to pursue further each allegation (unsupported lie)... The truth is that we are not "down to a core of the 'worst-of-the-worst' (as Mausser likes to call them). These are the same cross-section of offenders, with the same cross-section of offenses, as were routinely let go by the 'board' for many years, right up until 'Senate Bill-2' (the 'New Law') in 1996 shut-off the steady influx of 'Old Law' inmates and caused the 'parole' board to panic! Suddenly realizing that their lucrative jobs would eventually be ELIMINATED once all of the 'Old Law' were released, they moved quickly to revise their concise 6-page 1987 booklet to a 100-page convoluted, confusing '1998' 'guideline' (illegally applied retroactively) so as to add many, many years to an 'Old Law' person's eligibility (anticipated out-date) and to see that he virtually never went home! In this way 'S.B.-2' created a monster! The reason for the existence of a 'parole' board was to empty beds by releasing 'model prisoners' at ⅔ of their 'minimum'. (Most aging 'Old Law' are and for many years have been 'model prisoners.') "At the earliest convenience" was the obvious intention of the Lawmakers, in the days of 'open-ended' sentencing. A "tail" (25 years for 'Felony-1') was added as a deterrent to assure "good behavior." The "maximum" it was called, and it was never meant to be "served," or else everyone, regardless of his 'minimum,' would' simply have been given "25." !!! Typically a Judge would say: "I'm sentencing you to 10-to-25 years; with good behavior you'll be out in 7 years." (Lawmakers allowed 30% off of the 'minimum' as "time-off for good behavior"). Every participant in the Trial knew this and were in accord with it. Even the 'board's' own 1987 'guideline' booklet said that most 'Felony-1's (in columns 1, 2 and 3) "Usually will be released at Statutory First Hearing!" Official court Charts & Graphs prove that for many years 4 of every 5 were so released "the first time up." (The typical 'continuance' was 12-to-18 months, one time; It was still years short of the 'minimum.' After a one-year (or a two-year) parole, the remaining "shelf" years "went up in smoke," as the parolee had demonstrated his good faith. There was never any reference to the "Nature-Of-The-Offense." The Judge's sentence (the Lesser figure) already took that into account! The 'final release' following completion of parole removed the "tail" and made the ex-parolee a citizen again. The 'parole' board knew that it was up to the courts to sentence! An Official Document reminded them (circa 1986): "You are not a sentencing body!"... But they continue to hand out 5-year and 10-year 'sentences', as they believe that they are a 'court'; saying "You're not in Court now; you're in our 'court'!" Mausser tells the newspapers that "The elderly are 'still offending'... the same offenses...". That's ridiculous! Most of them have not had a single 'Infraction Ticket' in 15 or 20 years! But the public have no way of knowing that most of what she says are deliberate lies for the preservation of her job. There is no "worst-of-the-worst." People are people; Offenses are offenses; they're all 'serious'... then and now; that doesn't change! What has changed is that 'Senate Bill-2' or 'New Law' people have definite-term (or "flat-time") sentences and so cannot be extended by the 'board,' who resent this fact and who long ago determined to take-it-out-on the 'Old Law' by forcing them to "make up the difference;" So they usurp the court's Authority by continually re-sentencing (and re-sentencing again)the hapless, unprotected 'Old Law', referring to their (claimed) "discretion" as their excuse! (The Dictionary defines 'discretion' as "being discrete or careful in what one does." Particularly is this called-for in matters of "punishment": "Enough Is Enough!" The 'board' cannot mete-out "punishment"; only a court can! REMEMBER THIS: 'Old Law' inmates have had many years longer than most 'New Law', in which to modify and improve their behavior and their outlook on life. - The ex-Director of U.S. Prisons said that "Keeping older people doesn't lower crime," because "People age out of violent crime in their mid-30s." - A prominent American Civil Liberties Union (A.C.L.U.) Attorney said: "At the point where a person reaches first eligibility, that's enough punishment!" - Also: "An informed public is a fair-minded public." - So... when the public are informed of the 'parole' board's double-dealings, the public will demand fairness to 'Old Law' People!!! Almost in the same breath Mausser states that no further releases of 'Old Law' will take place - in effect ordering all of them to die in prison! But (incredibly!) that "meaningful" hearings "will continue." ('Meaningful' means "A good chance of release.") None of this is necessary! No more "decision-making" is called-for. The court-judge prescribed the sentence and the date-of-eligibility, and he knew full-well the "nature-of-the-offense." Each and every eligible 'Old Law' inmate is so many years past his rightful eligibility-date, having been deprived of it, that it is ludicrous even to think of adding to the shame by inflicting upon him (or her) one more year or one more day! From here on, the first-and-foremost issue in the minds of the Lawmakers, and of the governor, should be "How fast can we get 'em outta' there!?"

Author: Raedwulf

Author Location: Ohio

Date: April 11, 2017

Genre: Essay

Extent: 3 pages

If this is your essay and you would like it removed from or changed on this site, refer to our Takedown and Changes policy.

Takedown and Changes Policy
Browse More Essays