The Vindicator
May 15, 2019
When former Ohio lawmaker Shirley Smith resigned from the
Ohio Parole Board, she told the Dayton Daily News that the agency was
“dysfunctional, secretive and toxic.”
There are approximately 49,500 inmates in Ohio’s state
prison system. The parole board has discretion over only about 9,000 inmates.
In 1996, the state enacted truth-in-sentencing requiring sentences of a
specific term. As a result, the board has discretion over about 3,900 inmates
sentenced under the old law and another 5,000 inmates serving life sentences
for serious crimes such as murder.
The Ohio Parole Board may only grant parole “if in its
judgment there is reasonable ground to believe that ... paroling the prisoner
would further the interests of justice and be consistent with the welfare and
security of society.”
According to the Daily News, between 2011 and October 2018,
the parole board granted release for 1,076 inmates out of the 10,575 interviews
it conducted – a parole rate of 10.2 percent.
Video conference
Board members are appointed by the director of the Ohio
Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. Board members interview
parole-eligible inmates via video conference. Interviews and deliberations are
closed, but decisions are public record.
The Ohio Parole Board operates largely behind closed doors.
Records are kept secret, full board meetings are open to the public but debate
and votes are conducted behind closed doors.
Smith’s departing critique of the board has opened the
system, and process, to scrutiny. Criticism has begun to grow from crime
victims, inmates and attorneys.
The Department of Rehabilitation and Correction has a new
director – Annette Chambers-Smith. The new director is talking about reform.
She believes change is needed, including increased transparency.
Gov. Mike DeWine has also jumped into the fray. DeWine would
like to add new members to the parole board from different backgrounds, improve
training and establish new guidelines weighing inmate misconduct.
Inadequate suggestion
Although the governor’s suggestion to create behavior
guidelines is a step in the right direction, it too is inadequate. Ohio needs
to establish guidelines to aid board members in making decisions. For instance,
the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, on which I served for six
years, uses a regularly normed parole guideline. The instrument is generated
for every inmate eligible for parole and being interviewed by a panel of the
parole board.
The Pennsylvania parole guidelines consider such things as
behavior in prison, program completion, prior supervision history, prior
criminal history, future risk and the nature of the offense resulting in the
inmate’s incarceration.
Each inmate is provided a numerical score which indicates
whether the inmate is “likely” or “unlikely” to be paroled.
The Pennsylvania Board also uses various assessments
including risk, sex offending, mental health and drug and alcohol. The
guidelines provide uniformity to the board’s decision making. The parole rate
for the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole is about 58 percent.
That is not to suggest that Ohio’s parole rate should be
comparable. Pennsylvania’s board sees, or votes on, the parole of every violent
and non-violent offender in state prison who is eligible for parole.
Hefty sentences
Ohio’s board is only seeing inmates who were incarcerated
before truth-in-sentencing was established. The inmates who are left received
hefty sentences and many presumably committed serious, violent offenses. The
other segment of the prison population Ohio deals with are lifers. The lifers
are usually the worst of the worst.
DeWine said his administration is appointing three new
members to the board – a public defender, a prosecutor and a state lawmaker.
“The reforms of the Parole Board are a work in progress.
There is going to be more besides what we are announcing today,” he told the
Daily News, adding that he is working with state lawmakers on additional
changes.
Creating parole guidelines would provide consistency and
transparency to the parole process in Ohio and would go a long way toward
gaining the confidence of the governor, lawmakers and most importantly, the
public.
Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett,
Kelly & George P.C. His book “The Executioner’s Toll, 2010 “was released by
McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him
on Twitter @MatthewTMangino)
To visit the column CLICK HERE
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment