An inmate named Dave (another form of Clem) was serving a prison sentence for domestic violence. He had caught his wife in a sexual relationship with his older brother and had grabbed her by the elbow and led her out of his brother’s bedroom, while threatening his brother if he ever caught the two of them together again. She had him jailed for abduction because he removed her against her will. He went to prison and she visited him and romanced him as husband and wife with their three children brought along to keep the family together.

When he saw a parole board, they told him that his wife had basically recanted her charges against him allowing that she had provoked his behavior and that she wanted him released from prison. The parole board gave him another year to serve, anyway. The so-called victim asked that he be released and they still would not do it. They want to keep the prisons full.

In matters of this nature, parole board members defend their actions that they act within the parameters set forth by statutory law concerning prison sentencing. Mitigating circumstances are not solid foundation for political concerns if professional risk is taken in regard to releasing criminals of violence—-whether defined or actual——if the released felon goes on to hurt someone again when released on parole. The board is not liable for a prisoner’s actions after his sentence has expired or after they have kept him an inordinate amount of time beyond the earliest possible release date.

The parole board likes to hold the image of "vigilante" and as an instrument for bringing "truth in sentencing." The only way the parole board feels safe for releasing a prisoner at his earliest possible release date is if the crime is non—violent, not sex—related or drug related; say something like cashing a bad check or some innocuous statutory crime, and if the prisoner has no prior criminal history.

If a prisoner is fortunate enough to have enterprising people outside who can solicit signatures of community leaders from churches and political arenas——such as a high—ranking member of some Women’s League of Voters-—to sign petitions for the release of this particular prisoner, the parole board feels exonerated from responsibility for releasing said prisoner. If such a prisoner were to return to the outside community and cause any problems whatsoever, the parole board would be quick to go public with the community’s petitions for that prisoner’s release in the first place. This is why it is difficult to gather signatures from such influential persons in the community to submit to a parole board. The political ramifications are obvious to any ambitious person who is dependent on good politics for their personal goals in their personal and professional lives.

Usually you won’t see this phase of correction operations, because it isn’t very sensational or glamorous. In fact, it’s kind of like showing the toilet habits of actors while in the midst of some drama. Conniving politics are as private usually as toilet habits for people who are supposed to be public servants. This kind of issue never reaches the public’s eye. Plus the fact that the posts or positions on parole boards are generous gifts by appointment for political favors to state Governors.

The qualifications for such civil service posts with paychecks well over $50,000 annually with only a high school education should tell you something about such appointments. Most of the assignments are for people who have little or no previous experience in the criminal justice system.

Some of the parole board members try to take on "hard-cop" images when they interview inmates who are eligible for parole. One incident that sticks in my mind was when one inmate came back from his parole hearing and told us about the attitude he ran into when he talked with the members on his panel.

They had asked him how he had spent his time in prison and what he had done to improve himself. He told them about earning his G.E.D. certificate and about how he had taken courses in mental health self—help courses, and how he had become a born-again Christian. He said he had learned to trust the Lord and that the Lord was here with him at this hearing with the parole board.

The parole board member seemed to take offense at the mention of the Lord being present at the hearing and told the inmate that the Lord didn’t run anything here in this meeting with the parole board, but that he--the board member--did run things here, and that the inmate was going to have to do more time in prison. He told him that bringing the "Lord" to the parole hearing was a bad joke, and nobody was laughing.

I thought that was a bit callous and actually unnecessary to respond to a person’s spiritual development in that manner. It would have sufficed for the parole board member to have considered the information he had asked the inmate about, and simply stated that the inmate was going to be continued to a later date for considering a parole for him.

I believe it is unprofessional for someone to act like an "Archie Bunker" in that capacity when dealing with people who try as they are able to change and grow into a better person. Such snide remarks only places negative stress on the inmate and encourages the inmate to react defensively.

In fact, the inmate said that if the parole board member was the kind of people who were going to heaven, he wasn’t too sure he wanted to share all eternity with people like that. I said it was a challenging thought. I suggested that he shouldn’t let people get in front of his faith. I told him that it might be possible that the parole board member was a socially functional demon who was trying to rob him of his spiritual growth. He liked the thought and went back to reading his bible.

My own experience with the parole board members on May 2, 1994 was a bit along those lines also. When I was called into the hearing room, there were two male members sitting behind desks. The usual routine for these teams is that one member will be over-viewing the next case to be heard while the other member talks with the inmate for the current hearing (This member had been reviewing my case while the other member had talked with the last inmate was being heard).

Mr. C and Mr. S were the members who were on my housing unit panel. Mr. C was my interviewer and his first statement to me was that he had all the information he needed to make a decision in my case. He was shuffling my paperwork and files while he spoke. He said, "Ohio doesn’t like multiple murderers, Bradford, and that the board was going to step outside my guideline and recommend to a full board panel that I be continued for ten more years before being considered for parole." I told him that I didn’t think any state liked "multiple murderers," but that I was very interested in knowing for a fact that I wasn’t "reading too much between the lines" when I heard them saying that it didn’t matter what I had done in the last nearly twenty years in prison to change myself for the better; that all that I had done to accept my responsibility and to internalize my positive changes meant nothing; that I could never rise above the status of "multiple murderer?"

Mr. C angrily retorted that this was not what they were saying; that this was why I was having a hearing now to determine whether to give me five years, ten years, fifteen years, or to never give me a parole! I asked if all the positive things I had done in the last nearly twenty years meant anything at all; was it only the things I had done wrong before that time? He told me that I wasn’t having a parole hearing for the good things I had done, but for the bad things I had done over twenty years ago.

I told him that I understood, although I didn’t appreciate it; I said I recognized it as the "politically correct" thing to do. He became angry again and denied that it was the politically correct thing to do. I interrupted that I wasn’t trying to antagonize the panel, but that what I meant was, that if they were to grant me a parole and I turned out to be the best parolee the state of Ohio had ever had, no one would come up and shake their hand, saying, "Good decision!"

However, if they did grant me a parole and I were to mess up even in the technical sense, people would ask, "What in the hell were you thinking of when you gave him a parole!" They both nodded their heads in agreement. And I said further that there was also an element of a "Catch 22’ in my situation, in that the board would never want to let me go unless they knew I had changed; but they’d never know I’d changed unless they let me go. Again, both members nodded their heads in agreement.

It was then that the atmosphere of hostility left the room and after civilized question and answers, Mr. C closed the hearing by wishing me good luck. I left the room on that note, and began to learn to deal with my ten year continuance.

The parole board has had a hard history because most of its successes have been very low profile. I mean, when did you ever see the media focus on a successful parole program? Has there ever been a family program that dealt with parole on a positive note?

I wonder if there ever has been a Hollywood movie with a young man or woman hero who gets in trouble with the law, goes to prison, gets out on parole and adjusts back into the main flow of society on a structured basis...and does all this successfully, to some very good end? I don’t think so! What would be exciting about that? But with so many American families being introduced into criminal justice system processes, sooner or later there should be some interest in portraying some part of this process in a positive and successful mode if for nothing else but to provide a model of appropriate behavior for the public at large.

Right now, it appears that the subjects relating to criminal justice systems are on a shameful and negative note. If a family is shown to experience a member going afoul of the law, it is by some deranged member of the family. By deranged I refer to a hatefully deviant person in the family who allows some form of chemical abuse——drugs and/or alcohol-—to allow himself to make some very bad choices and to act out some very inappropriate behaviors; criminal behaviors. Then comes apprehension, conviction, incarceration, and eventually parole, with the person being even worse than before going to prison.

The usual ending for such a personality is more trouble with the law and more imprisonment. In fact, in most of the crime dramas, the villains are portrayed as having extensive prior criminal histories-—usually for the same types of crimes or worse. The message is always basically the same: once a criminal, always a criminal! The criminal is portrayed as having no socially redeemable values whatsoever.