READERS' RULINGS ECHO BOARD VOTES

Some participants in an exercise involving parole requests managed to
pin down their decisions only after considerable mental wrestling.

"I think of myself as pretty hard-line," said Pam O., who surprised
herself upon realizing she had voted to grant three paroles.

Others found it easier to make their rulings: "I think all three should
do the full time given to them by the judge or jury handling their
case," wrote Ron G., who further opined that all paroling should be
stopped.

The exercise offered here a week ago provided us each with an
opportunity to try on the shoes of a member of the Texas Board of
Pardons and Paroles. We were invited to consider three sample cases
that were provided by the three board members over the division that
includes Harris County.

These samples were based upon actual cases, with enough changes to
protect the identities of the people involved. And board member Cynthia
Tauss pointed out that the sketches didn't provide nearly as much
information as is found in complete parole files upon which actual
decisions are based. But she considered the details that were included
in each of the samples the most important facts for determining whether
the inmate should be paroled or kept in prison.

Space considerations today required even further condensing of the
cases, but anyone interested can access previous columns, including
last week's, at the Chronicle Web site: www.chron.com.

Clear-Cut Decisions For Most

Case No. 1 is 36, in for burglary this time. He's been in the pen
before, twice paroled, twice revoked. He has completed education and
counseling programs. In the 1997 burglary, he entered an elderly
couple's home, grabbed the woman around the neck while holding a knife.
He was disoriented and confused and put on the woman's bathing suit.
The woman's husband talked him into releasing her and putting down the
knife.

Of those who e-mailed responses to the exercise, 80 percent voted
against parole for No. 1. Tauss said the parole board also voted
against parole.

No. 2, who is 21, originally was given three years' probation in April
1997. He and a co-defendant were charged with robbing a woman of her
purse. In June 1999, the probation was revoked for technical violations
and enhanced to seven years in prison. He's not involved in gangs, has
finished self-improvement courses and has stable release plans. He has
a daughter living with his parents.

The vote by respondents for No. 2 was just the reverse of the No. 1
vote -- 80 percent said No. 2 deserves parole. The parole board also
voted for parole in this case, Tauss said.

No. 3 is 29. He got seven years' probation in 1993 for delivery of
cocaine, but that probation was revoked the following year, when he got
seven years in prison for forcing sexual intercourse on a 13-year-old
at least three times by threatening her life. He has strong family
support, has always lived with his mother and has never held a driver's
license. Diagnosed with mild mental retardation, he has an IQ of 66.
But he is a high school graduate and will seek employment in the
construction field. He has not participated in any self-improvement
programs.

A Difficult Dilemma

A major difficulty in deciding this case lies in the fact he is due to
be discharged in February 2002, and after serving his full sentence he
would be released without supervision or treatment. On the other hand,
if paroled before his entire sentence is served, he can be ordered into
street supervision and sex-offender treatment programs.

The majority of respondents -- 54 percent -- opposed parole; 44 percent
favored it. You may notice that doesn't add up to 100 percent. That is
because some who were able to decide on the first two cases found they
could not reach a decision on the third.

"This is a harder one," wrote N.M. "It would require further
investigation before I could decide. I need to know: Does he know right
from wrong?"

But in this case as in the other two, although by a narrower margin,
the majority of respondents matched the decision of the official board
members. The board decided against parole.

Many who responded included interesting opinions about what the
conditions of parole should be. Jacob W., for example, cited a 20-year-
old study that he said demonstrated that when parolees were required to
eat well-balanced diets, it drastically reduced the recidivism rate.