<< Digital Forensic Examination | Main | What Happened to John Cornyn? >>


Can We Trust Government to Decide Who's Safe for Early Release?

| 2 Comments
Those backing sentencing "reform" tell us that, for the last 25 years, the government (broadly speaking) has made thousands of mistakes in deciding whom to imprison and for how long  --  but now we can trust the same government to decide whom to release and how early.

Does that sound right to you?  

The Wendell Callahan triple murder case should disabuse us of this notion, as well as illustrate its high and irreversible costs. But the Callahan matter is not alone. Note, for example, this story in the Denver Post:  "Parolee Arrested in Homeless Murder Was Touted as Model of Success."   

A parolee recently charged in the death of another homeless man was touted by a state parole administrator as a model of success in a meeting with legislators just 16 days before the fatal stabbing.

Calvin Johnson, 44, who allegedly called himself "Calvin/Elijah the prophet/crazy killer" in a text after the slaying, faces one count of first-degree murder in the New Year's Day death of Teodoro Leon III.


The sentencing reform bill presently treading water in the Senate would restore a version of parole, albeit by a different name. Are the federal authorities that much better than those in Colorado in figuring out whom to release early?  Were they with Wendell Callahan? 

The Post story continues, in an account chock full of the airy cliches on which the pitch for sentencing reform is built:

Alison Morgan, deputy director of parole, discussed Johnson's success overcoming troubles linked to mental illness at a Dec. 16 session of the Joint Judiciary Committee, according to a recording.

"He has coped through his time in prison and on parole by threatening and being aggressive. And his thought was to do this again to hopefully be revoked because he didn't want to be accountable and he didn't want to be on parole.

"And our community-based organizations came together and the parole officer came together -- the mental health specialist -- and we all sat down. And we came up with a plan to, to really challenge this parolee to try. And we each pooled a little bit of money and commitment to work with this parolee to launch him to be successful. ...

"But it was a tremendous collaboration between parole, mental health and the community-based organizations. And, and that's how all of this is working, really very successfully," Morgan said.

This was the kicker:

Morgan could not be reached for comment on Thursday.

What, no comment?  On their prize former inmate?

But that's not all:

Adrienne Jacobson, spokeswoman for the CDOC, declined to answer questions about Morgan's comments other than to confirm that Johnson was the subject of Morgan's speech.

"Yes, at the time of that testimony, he was progressing with his parole officer and other community partners," Jacobson said.

"Declined to answer questions" wonderfully sums up sentencing reformers' version of accountability.  And to translate Ms. Jacobson's mush into normal English, what she was saying was:  "At the time of that testimony, our showcase parolee was getting ready to slice up a homeless man, as his parole officer and other partners snoozed."

What the libertarians supporting sentencing reform don't get is that the government they so distrust is the same government to which they propose to hand over what we have seen are life-and-death release decisions.




2 Comments

No need to worry. They will put their "best men" on it.

That's the source of my dread.

Leave a comment

Monthly Archives