An inmate will sometimes deceive himself into thinking that the parole board will want to hear that he is innocent of the crime he has been serving time for in this prison where the hearing is taking place. This is not so. The parole board members are usually instructed in the logic that the guilt or innocence of an inmate has been determined by a court of law before the inmate came to prison. They will not "re-try" the case at a parole hearing, or allow themselves to become a form of post-conviction remedy for the convicted felon. What they will do, is review the case as written and recorded, mostly from police reports, prosecutor’s notes, and letters from the judge. Also, the P.S.I. (Pre-Sentence Investigation report) will reveal information privy to the court and parole authority, without the inmate‘s knowledge.

This presents difficulty when a parole board member asks the inmate a question relating to this privy information and the inmate doesn’t know how to answer. Sometimes his response will be contradictory to the information in the report which is translated by the board as dishonesty on the inmate’s part rather than consider the possibility that the information in the report may be incorrect.

Many inmates who have become "system-wise" will take their chances by agreeing with whatever the parole board says. The member may have a report which states that the inmate was involved in using drugs at some time before the crime was committed. The member might ask the inmate if he had used drugs prior to the commission of the crime. The "wise" inmate will surmise that there must be something in the report to encourage the question, and will answer possibly, "I’m sure I did, although I cannot remember exact times and places; I was a rotten person back then and I would not put anything past me for my behavior at that time in my past." Most parole board members would hold this very opinion of the inmate, so the inmate’s response would be taken favorably in the sense that the member would feel satisfied that the inmate had a realistic picture of himself in his criminal past, even though he hadn’t used drugs before as stated.

The bottom line could be that "truth" is considered from two different perspectives, that of the parole board and that of the inmate. The "truth" that counts is the one held by the parole board. So the inmate who wishes to enhance his possibility of being granted a parole will bow down to the parole board and their understanding of his case.

A great number of inmates at their parole hearing will talk about their loved ones (usually family) who need them to return to the outside world again. An inmate will bring up his wife and his children who need him and his support desperately, as though the parole board would be doing a terrible thing if they gave him more of his sentence to serve. The parole board resents the attempted manipulation and points out that if the loved ones (family) are of such concern, why didn’t the inmate think of them before he committed the crime? Why are these people so important to him now? If the inmate wasn’t responsible then, why would the parole board believe that he would be now? Is the inmate using the "dependency and desperation" act now just to secure a release on parole? The parole board knows that the loved ones have survived without the inmate this far and that there are agencies to aid them in their survival if the inmate is made to serve more of his sentence.

This, however does not mean that the parole board does not encourage and appreciate an inmate having loved ones that he cares about. It’s just that they won’t tolerate the loved ones being used as leverage with the parole board’s decision for granting parole or not granting parole. An inmate would do well to let the parole board know that he has a new appreciation for his loved ones and that he recognizes his responsibility in caring for and supporting them upon his release to the larger community...whenever that might happen.

Another folly the uninitiated inmate may fall into when seeing a parole board is the rabid "Christian" role. This is when the inmate proudly announces to the parole board that he has been "born again" in Christ and has had all his sins forgiven; that he is not the same man he was when he committed the crime. Therefore and thereby it would be totally unnecessary, sinful, and perhaps even illegal to continue to punish him for his past behaviors.

Sometimes the parole board is not too kind or gentle in enlightening the "Christian" about the separation of Church and state in letting the inmate know that Christ doesn’t sit on the Parole Board. They may applaud the inmate’s new understanding of how to live his life, but his "guilt-free" stance before this part of the criminal justice system isn’t well received. The parole board members feel his revelation is simply manipulation for a favorable parole decision. Not going to happen...!

Here again, the parole board does appreciate to learn that an inmate has been working on his spiritual development (within socially acceptable religions--being those who remember to "Render that unto Caesar, that which is Caesar’s"). A person who develops spiritually is usually a better citizen overall through the discipline of honoring a "higher Power." It is only when the established faith is used as a tool for personal gain that the parole board turns away in revulsion, for whatever the faith may be.

The envelope for this letter is the kind of embossed envelopes I was talking about in my earlier letter. Stamps are not allowed because some people put L.S.D. on the stamp glue in the past. Wait! Don’t even say it out loud about the glue on the envelope flap! Envelopes will be banned! (Smile?) More to come. Yer pal, Paul.

----

The parole board is naturally interested in self-help programs, as well as highly structured professional programs such as N.A. (Narcotics Anonymous) and A.A. (Alcoholics Anonymous). In-patient and out-patient programs are equally appreciated by the parole board in the interest that the inmate has had exposure to the tenets of programs designed to help the dependent abuser.

But there is no "magic" in having taken such therapy programs that will make the parole board think you are "cured." In fact, most of the credible and accredited programs cite that very phenomenon that the patient is never "cured." The patient can only hope to remain in remission through conscious effort on a 24-hour a day approach. Maintaining sobriety on a 24-hour a day basis has proven to be more realistic in setting up such short-term goals for the addicted personality.

The parole board wants the inmate to understand that there is no simple one-time-for-all-time "cure" for drug and alcohol addiction. It becomes something similar to a personal hygiene approach; there is no "one-time-for-all-time" shower to clean the human body. Any other approach tends to hold the same folly of errant thinking that the "War to end all wars..." held toward the middle of this century. Didn’t happen; ain’t gonna happen, as George Bush might say.

This is why it is sound logic for the inmate to admit that he is an alcoholic and/or is drug dependent. Any other response in line with, "I’ve learned my lesson and will never touch another drop or do any non-prescribed drugs ever again; I am cured!" simply tells the parole board that the inmate has no realistic concept of how powerful and deep an addiction may run in an individual, and therefore will be at higher risk for "relapse" or continued chemical abuse. The parole board doesn’t usually regard such response as dishonesty by the inmate as much as regarding it as "ignorance" for the magnitude or scope of his addiction problem.