After all the excitement about the new Parole rules I reported on a few months ago, this just makes no sense. Rarely does "the system", which still grinds away with Parole and Probation challenges, make sense to the average American citizen.
So, 50 violent felons were freed on a Court of Appeals technicality, after it was revealed said felons "were not told" they'd have to spend 5 years on Probation. Is it me, or is it safe to say that most violent criminals would be pretty dense to NOT figure this out anyway?
Governor Patterson frantically worked to fix the snag; alas, it didn't work. One of the freed ex-cons, Jamal Winter, allegedly killed a dry cleaning store owner shortly after his recent release.
Thoughts? Probation and Parole have long been problematic for America's justice system and are sometimes the reason why penalties stiffen for petty crimes while allowing rapists and murderers to be handed down relatively (shockingly) light sentences. Why is it that the worst criminals are - anecdotally - getting the lightest sentences? For example, because of the horrific home invasion and murder of the family of Dr. Pettit in Connecticut, a teen holding a dime bag of marijuana will now serve 10 years. Why? Because Parole and Probation did not supervise the killers of Mr. Pettit's family.
Write your lawmakers and tell me if you know of a story of slanted justice.
No comments:
Post a Comment