- Hate to break it to you but 2003 was 21 years ago
Most people are. But not all, of course.
A stupid and tragic crime, but I’d grant her parole unless she’s been a problem in prison.
You are right. My only excuse is that I’m just home from work and somewhat tired.
Well, will she have learned to be a be a better person after 21 years in prison, you think?
She was pretty immature at 19.
It’s hard to predict how prison will influence someone. I hope she’s taken college classes and gotten counseling. I’m not sure it’s available in all prisons.
Nothing “accidental” about it–the death came from a series of choices she made. 30 years is too lenient.
Yeah I’d say 21 years in prison would be a suitable punishment for this crime (although the counterpoint would be: this is Texas how many people who didn’t kill anyone are in prison for much longer than that?)
To be honest the civil is more interesting to me. The management here have a lot to answer for. If they did carry on with this policy, how many other servers were shot, stabbed or otherwise attacked over the last 21 years because they felt they had to stop someone dine and dashing (again it’s Texas FFS it’s not a good idea to do that anywhere but in a state where every other dude is carrying? Its basically suicidal)
Don’t feel bad, it’s frankly unbelievable that 2003 is over two decades ago.
According to the texas.gov prison website, Texas Department of Criminal Justice Inmate Search, here’s her last parole decision:
“Denied on 05/12/2021
NEXT REVIEW (05/2024)- Deny favorable parole action and set for next review.
Denial reason(s): 2D
2D NATURE OF OFFENSE - THE RECORD INDICATES THE INSTANT OFFENSE HAS ELEMENTS OF BRUTALITY, VIOLENCE, ASSAULTIVE BEHAVIOR, OR CONSCIOUS SELECTION OF VICTIM’S VULNERABILITY INDICATING A CONSCIOUS DISREGARD FOR THE LIVES, SAFETY, OR PROPERTY OF OTHERS, SUCH THAT THE OFFENDER POSES A CONTINUING THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY.”
Wow. Sounds like prison may not have rehabilitated her, but at least it kept her away from the general public for 20 years.
In an alternative universe situation in which she just missed the waitress and didn’t get caught, I wonder what sort of adult she would have become.
As I read the post above yours, it seems to focus only on the elements of the offense, not on how she’s behaved since. I see no evidence either way on rehibiltation.
Using the elements of the offense to deny parole when parole eligibility is part of the sentence for the offense seems a little circular to me, but I guess I don’t know who needs to meet what burden of proof.
As a juror, I would favor the family in this contradiction. You pay for dine-and-dashers but it’s company policy that you do nothing about it if someone DnDs.
Nope because the 80’s were 20 years ago.
I thought parole was supposed to be based entirely off of behavior in prison. Otherwise, if you’re going to reference the original crime when denying parole, why even bother with a parole hearing?
I thought that “Nature of Offence” referred to something that happened during incarceration. But now I don’t see anything to support my earlier interpretation.
I assumed that there are questions about remorse at a parole hearing. Sounds like this woman is just your garden variety asshole.
The parole board starts with the offence as a baseline, then considers conduct since then. If the original offence was a horrible one, need to show major improvements to justify release.
Absolutely but it doesn’t appear that they bothered to find out about her conduct since. They certainly may have but the form reflects a rubber stamp NO based on the original crime.
Difficult to tell from what’s out there. But it is Texas, and parole can be a tough sell here even in the best of cases.