Prisonlandia, pt 16

​

Parole Attorney

 

This can be hit or miss and depends on what is in that pesky little parole file. If the DA, investigators, or victim have provided the parole board with unflattering information, including a protest, whether true or not, this will sway their decision more than the fact that you hired an attorney. Remember, the Parole Board is part of the Executive Branch of Government and is not bound by the same rules as a Court. I spent an obscene amount on a parole attorney who was very reputable and had been around a long time to represent me for my second parole review before my “short-way”. I was denied release despite receiving an FI-1 vote from the lead voter. My mandatory supervision date (short-way) was about a month away and so my attorney offered to do it pro bono. I assumed that surely things would go in my favor but I was wrong. In fact, the Board member who had previously voted FI-1 just thirty days earlier, changed her mind and voted no. This is when I realized that regardless of what I accomplished in Prisonlandia or how well I behaved, the answer would continue to be no because of negative information in my file that I had no control over. With that said, the good thing about a parole attorney is that it forces the Board to stop and hear the presentation in your favor. Otherwise, you’re just a few mouse clicks away from being voted on without any significant effort to read or understand the “big picture”. Just remember this if you decide to hire a parole attorney – A good attorney knows the law. A great attorney plays golf with the Judge.

Here’s a little info on the parole attorney I used: He was the best available.

 

Good Time

 

Over the course of your sentence, you may accumulate “good-time” which can help you secure an early release; however, it does not affect the length of your sentence. They don’t chop off the end because you’ve been a good boy. Remember, you have no right to good-time under Texas law, and it has no set value (time value, not monetary) – shit, at times you might wonder why it even exists. Although there is no right as far as receiving it or utilizing what is received, once it is given it cannot be arbitrarily taken away without due process as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Keep in mind that going through the process of receiving a disciplinary case (hearing, statement, someone “representing” you) is considered due process and potentially, you could lose some or even all of your good-time credits as a result of a major disciplinary case.

The “value” of good-time is determined by how much time you have left on your sentence when you are released. You won’t read that anywhere in the law, but essentially that is what happens. For some, the accumulation of good-time may mean release three years early. However, a different guy with the exact same sentence, charge, history, and disciplinary record may only receive a release with two months left on his sentence. The Parole Board determines the “value” or lack of value, for your good time. This is one of the most frustrating things you will encounter within the Texas Prisonlandia System – no consistent criteria with regards to an early release, and conditional mandates incorporated into law so as to allow the system to do whatever they want.

 

Rehabilitation and the Parole Board

 

While in TDCJ, you will encounter a form called the Individualized Treatment Plan (ITP). This document will reflect any programs, classes, or training that you receive while locked up. It will also indicate programs or classes that TDCJ recommends for you. This is a TDCJ administrative document and does not reflect or predict the will of the Parole Board. Yes, the Parole Board can choose to look at it and consider it, but they have an obligation to do so. After first entering TDCJ, my ITP recommended that I be placed in the Pre-Release Therapeutic Community (PRTC) – sounds heavenly, doesn’t it? During the duration of my time, PRTC had an “N” next to it to indicate that I needed to take it. However, not once did the Parole Board ever offer it or any other program to me (certain programs require Parole Board placement). In addition, I stayed proactive and completed multiple programs and classes voluntarily which were added to my ITP, yet the Parole Board was not impressed, and they may not have ever glanced at my ITP.  The reason? Here's my theory. The Parole Board EXPECTED me to stay active and accomplish while I was in Prisonlandia based upon my background and personal achievements. Had I come in with no life accomplishments and done the same thing, chances are I would have been granted parole because I would have exceeded expectations. As it stood, there was NOTHING I could have done in TDCJ that would outshine my accomplishments prior to Prisonlandia.

“Rehabilitation” as you will learn, is a very ambiguous term. There is no defined path to achieve it (at least in Texas) and there are no individualized standards or criteria, although TDCJ would like to make you believe otherwise. One of the Parole Board’s favorite reasons to deny inmates “mandatory supervision” is the following from Section 508.149 of the Texas Government Code: “The inmates accrued good-conduct time is not an accurate reflection of his potential for rehabilitation.” I’ve seen many inmates receive this answer despite taking numerous classes and programs voluntarily. The odd thing is, the Supreme Court made it clear in Greenholtz v. Nebraska Inmates, that inmates do not have a right to rehabilitation. So, essentially inmates are denied a mandatory release based on not having accumulated enough rehabilitation which they have no right in receiving in the first place. The Parole Board has distinguished no clear path to rehabilitation, and the State of Texas, unlike several other states, does not recognize inmates to be rehabilitated, even upon discharge. How is an inmate going to fulfill an unknown, unspecified expectation that 1) he has no right to receive and 2) will never be officially recognized by the State? If the Parole Board is able to deem an inmate’s potential for rehabilitation as unmet, then certainly they should be able to shed some light on what is needed to obtain the desired result. 

One important factor in any type of rehabilitation is constant communication and guidance. Imagine having a leg injury and having to go through physical rehabilitation in order to walk again. Now imagine that you have a therapist that sits in an office 250 miles away and is only able to send you vague suggestions via email and isn’t present to physically guide and correct you. Imagine if the same therapist continually deemed your rehabilitation as unacceptable, yet they were offering no information on how to correct it. I’ll tell you what would happen – you would never get proper rehabilitation and the injury would never heal correctly. The same thing is happening in Texas Prisonlandia. So, in order to be part of the solution and not just bitching about everything, I propose the following: The Parole Board should utilize counselors who are assigned to each unit throughout Texas. There would be multiple counselors on each unit who were each assigned a specified number of inmates as caseload (kind of like a parole officer). These counselors could observe first hand the inmate’s behavior and interactions with others on a daily basis in addition to being aware of any disciplinary issues. The counselors could do interviews with the inmates and even video record them to send to the Parole Board. The current “hands-off” approach to parole isn’t working and it needs to change.

One country that has created a successful model of rehabilitation is Norway who is more concerned with rehabilitation than punishment. The maximum sentence in Norway is 21 years (barring any super horrific high-profile crime). The goal is to rehabilitate and produce “good neighbors” for release into the public. In fact, Prisonlandialandia life inside a Norway Prisonlandia resembles life outside the walls so that re-integration is easier. Recidivism in Norway is 16-20%. In the United States, its 40%. (The Time Does Not Fit the Crime – Ava Shahani, Southwestern Journal of International Law, 2012). In Finland, a third of those incarcerated are in “open Prisonlandia’s” which allow the incarcerated to have cell phones, bank accounts, and leave for school, work, and to visit family. In Germany, only 6% of convictions lead to Prisonlandialandia time. (Comparative Corrections: How Adopting European Policies Can Improve the U.S. Corrections System, Tommi Mandell, Law Journal for Social Justice, 2024)

“Generally speaking, punishment makes men hard and cold; it concentrates, it sharpens the feeling of alienation and it strengthens the power of resistance.” 

-Friedrich Nietzsche 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcn6v7IaIfA