funny, guy skipped parole, got tracked down and its unfair

[kiryan]

basically killed someone, served 20 years, skipped out on parole, lead what appears to be a model life, got tracked down by the victim's grandson and is back in jail, most likely for life.

"I can't blame him for what he did," Dryman said. "But I think it was so wrong he spent so much money getting me here. I feel it is unfair."

That statement alone probably explains why he is in jail more than anything else. The lack of taking responsibility. The rest of the article is riddled with telling comments, it wasn't me, it was the old me a wild kid. On the other hand, if he's lead a model life for 20 years and he had been paroled... its not like he was really skipping out on his sentence... (yes parole is technically still part of the sentence, but is parole really a punishment or is parole supervision a guarantee that you don't start engaging in criminal behavior again). On the other hand, Roman Polanski, skipped out on additional punishment the judge was purportedly going to met out. So he doesn't get a pass.

I could argue it both ways. Today, I'll argue that it makes no sense to throw a productive member of society back into jail for parole violation and a grandson's vindictiveness.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_wedding_chapel_fugitive

[Corth]

How is he leading a 'model life' if he isn't complying with his parole obligations?

[kiryan]

This conjecture is predicated on the assumption that he has lived a model life since skipping out on parole. Take the model life comment with a grain of salt, thats what has been reported, undoubtedly there are slip ups in his record, maybe even major ones that haven't been reported yet.

Is the damage of the undermining of authority and the vindictiveness of a somewhat indirect victim a good reason to incarcerate someone (at a cost to the general public) after they have effectively served their sentence? Then again, by lieing about his identity he probably escaped the collateral damage that goes along with being a convicted felon like in applying for jobs.

[Corth]

You parole someone because you THINK they may be rehabilitated. However you aren't quite ready to give them free reign to do whatever they want. You want to make sure, for instance, that they are holding a job, not using drugs, and basically, aren't about to re-offend. The release is conditional on meeting a parole officer regularly so that we can be assured the subject is on the straight and narrow.

Now, if you decide that people can just avoid their parole obligations and skip town - and so long as they aren't busted for something we aren't going to go after them - that would certainly undermine the entire concept of parole. Sure a few guys would be 'model citizens', and then there might be tens of thousands of others who are back on drugs, robbing and stealing.. things maybe a parole officer finds out about in time to prevent further victimization. But if we tell them so long as they aren't busted for anything we won't send them back to jail, doesn't matter if you skip town and fail to meet with your parole officer.. how many people are actually going to meet with their parole officer?

[Thilindel]

Moreover, I wonder if it'd bother ANYONE if it had been his/her grandfather, brother, or son that was shot in the back six times - to not pursue. Just because the absolutely pathetic judicial system allowed parole means squat. Judicial system is so critically worthless. Every so often, society wonders 'how could this happen?' Nothing changes. You get judges who love abusing their legitimate power. You get attorneys who know a client is guilty. But the good old 'law' protects this from coming out into the open. Lame.

Yeah, it can be argued both ways, but murder is murder. Going into a situation with a loaded gun and ill-intent (probably up to, and including murder) was the plan all along.

One thing's for sure, after a bumblebee stings you, its stinger is stuck in your skin. The bee is now no longer a threat. I've seen that first hand. Did it stop me from smacking it, and punching it into the ground? Nope. The only thing that does make me wonder is how the case is so old, that when this happened, my grandparents were younger than I am now.

[kiryan]

Yes it would dramatically undermine parole supervision... and I suppose he really doesn't have a compelling case even though he is I think 74 or something.

Thilindel, he murdered someone and was sentenced to x years of prison (I think life), he was paroled after 20 years in prison. So the sentence wasn't exactly served, but as long as he kept his nose clean his sentence was effectively served with the only condition being he needed to be supervised by a parole officer (to make sure he didn't become a danger to society). Now it appears he filled the point of parole, but not the technical.

Should he, a basically reformed criminal, be sent back to prison for life over parole violation after demonstrating 20+ years of being a contributing member of society? For what purpose? Danger to society? Pleasure of the victim's grandson? To send a message and maintain teeth of parole stipulations? We certainly wouldn't want excons to stop taking parole seriously, but does that mean we can't have reasonable exceptions once in a while?

[teflor the ranger]

http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.bl ... apist.html

[Corth]

The Swiss decision refusing Roman Polanski's extradition should be condemned by all reasonable people. It was a politically motivated decision which contradicted international law. Quite frankly, it is the result of a lack of respect for the US government. We have demonstrated time and time again in the international arena that there will generally be no repurcussions when you fuck with us. So they fuck with us.

[kiryan]

Yea... the decision was obviously very political.

The excuse has got to be one of the weakest I've ever seen. The US "refused" to turn over a transcript or something of a specific meeting. I'm going to guess that requests like that are irregular and that it shouldn't have made a differnce. Basically, they were looking for a reason not to extradite and they latched onto the first thing they thought they could get away with. And after that Brittish woman came forward and said that Roman Polanski assaulted her when she was a minor a couple years later too... this guy was/may still be a sexual predator.