I can’t stop watching these. They’re fascinating, but also feel like an extreme invasion of privacy (especially when the victims speak.)
Agreed. I equate “behaving in prison” with “behaving in drug rehab”. Given the environment, it is a much easier thing to do than when one is free in society at large and capable of doing whatever one wants without someone looking over one’s shoulder.
Given my two decades working in prison healthcare, I agree. But I will say that generally, being able to behave in prison over a period of years is an indicator that the inmate may do better after release than those who make/get into trouble in prison. However, many anti-social personality type inmates are able to hold it together in prison and then revert to type after release.
Maybe this is a highjack but reading these posts on parole makes me think of Shawshank Redemption and all of the interviews where Red was denied parole and then the one where he did “earn” parole.
I think it varies from restaurant to restaurant. It’s a shitty policy, but it exists. I know people who’ve been screwed by it.
I don’t really like the Parole Board deciding whether to grant parole based on the facts of the original crime. Those were known at sentencing, when it was determined that this criminal would be eligible for parole on X date. If the crime was too heinous to allow parole on X date, then the sentence should reflect that.
It should not be the Parole Board deciding that 20 years later.
How is that relevant when there’s no dispute that this was a terrible, tragic crime that took a young person’s life? That’s the kind of emotional framing that corrupts logical thinking and undermines the system of justice, and turns it into what I call Texas-style retribution.
The justice system has a duty to protect society and serve justice to the victims of crime and their survivors, but also to recognize that the criminal is also a human being and should be treated as such, not just as a moral principle but for the overall benefit of society, which is surely better off if offenders are rehabilitated than if they are indoctrinated into the criminal element through spending an unconscionable amount of time in prison for being drunk and stupid.
Texas-style retribution is not justice and doesn’t benefit anyone. This individual may indeed be a horrible and incorrigible person, but my problem is with the fact that this sort of sentencing tends to be routine throughout the US, most egregiously so in places like Texas, Georgia, and many other (mostly southern) states.
You don’t get to claim that Sarah Foust’s lost opportunities are relevant and Jennifer Sanchez’s lost opportunities are not and then declare that this claim is based on logic. You’re just making an emotion-based judgement on what you feel the priorities should be.
There’s a difference between being eligible for parole and being granted parole.
If you feel every prisoner should be released when they are eligible for parole, then we should just eliminate the parole system and give everybody a fixed release date.
The objection seems to be to on the board “deciding whether to grant parole based on the facts of the original crime.” Sure, the board needs to consider factors when making a release decision, but the facts of the crime were factored in when the sentence was imposed. At this point, has she been “rehabilitated” or not?
The parole board didn’t give Foust a new sentence. They just followed the sentence that was given to Foust back in 2003.
There’s a difference between being eligible for parole and being “eligible for parole”.
Frankly, the idea that the Parole Board could determine that this woman “poses a continuing threat to public safety” while considering nothing but one alcohol fueled event from 20 years ago is comical. Come to that conclusion after interviewing her, after talking to her jailers, put a high bar in front of her due to the seriousness of the crime.
This refusal seems like nothing but a rubber stamp, which means she wasn’t ever actually eligible for parole.
I think parole is a reward for good behavior while in prison.
If the prisoner works to educate theirself and show remorse that’s good. If they choose to dive into more crime while in prison, that’s bad.
It is a fact that Foust hasn’t had a single DUI conviction since 2003.
Some what argue this means she should be released from prison. Others would argue that imprisonment seems to be working in her case.
Foust should get out of prison when her victim can be out walking around, living her own life.
If that were the standard, she should have been sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. (which is your position apparently). Since she was given a shorter sentence, with the possibility of parole, it’s worth discussing what the standards for release on parole are or should be.
I see it as an incentive to become a person who can be part of society again. Take away the incentive, may as well remain a terrible, violent, useless person until (and past) the day the State is forced to let you go.
A number of states (including Wisconsin) have ‘truth in sentencing’ laws where the sentencing judge sets the day of release, and the day probation ends. No time off for good behavior, no parole boards. It has resulted (in Wisconsin at least) with the average length of stay in prison going up over 40%, the average prison population in the state more than doubling, and the cost of incarceration shot up like a rocket. And yet the violent crime rate remains the same per capita as our neighboring state, Minnesota (they’d been the same when we eliminated parole in WI too). There, they kept parole, had fewer inmates in their prison system, & spent less money on incarceration.
Oh, and inmate behavior problems went up for us too, as there was less benefit to ‘acting nice’.
Just an observation.
That’s what I always thought parole was about - give people an incentive to behave.
I think folks are assuming an awful lot based on a two-digit classification used on a website. Just because it was ultimately coded that way doesn’t mean other factors weren’t taken into account. According to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice:
When voting an individual parole case, the parole panel considers many factors which may include:
• Seriousness of the offense(s);
• Letters of support and/or protest;
• Sentence length/amount of time served;
• Criminal history/other arrest, probation, parole;
• Number of prison incarcerations;
• Juvenile history;
• Institutional adjustment (participation in specialized programs); and
• Offender age