4 ms·

>The bill also doesnt address perpetual parole. When I was released after having served time, I was sentenced immediately to additional "parole" for a year and

>The bill also doesnt address perpetual parole. When I was released after having served time, I was sentenced immediately to additional "parole" for a year and a half... parole says i miss one and I go back to a jail term I technically already served I'm nitpicking one detail of your overall point here, but you didn't serve the time; that's why you're on parole. If you had served the full sentence there would be no parole. So you pay an inconvenience tax in exchange for being released. If you violate those terms you go back to serve the remainder of your sentence. No one is saying it's easy, or that there aren't aspects that couldn't be improved, but I don't see the overarching problem here.

ams6110 8y ago
Why is this being downvoted? It's the same thought I had. Parole is early release. You are not on parole if you serve your full sentence. I don't know how good behavior credits factor into this. Typically a prisoner can get a significant reduction in time served for good behavior, but I don't know if that really means early parole or actually full release from the sentence.
- iseeyoubydesign 8y ago
  people are down voting because there is a political war going on between "criminals" and "prudes". People that want strong decency laws and those that want freedom regardless of decency. Simply put , there are many gray areas on many different dimensions
excalibur 8y ago
The overarching problem is that it is usually excessively inconvenient, to the point that parolees are being set up to fail. Rather than being designed to keep people on the straight and narrow, many systems appear designed to funnel people back into prison. When they get there they then face the remainder of their original sentence, meaning that it was effectively EXTENDED by the length of time they were on parole rather than shortened.
- EpicEng 8y ago
  Sure, and we can debate that, but it's not what I was responding to. The idea that he had technically served his sentence, but is on parole, makes no sense.
  - pureliquidhw 8y ago
    The opening line says he served 4.5 years. The parole started after he was released, after having served his time. edit: after more research it seems my understanding of parole's place in the criminal justice system may have been incomplete. Also there is a distinction between parole and probation that I had never noticed.
asnyder 8y ago
He said he served "additional parole" on top of his time served.
nimbius 8y ago
I’m afraid you’re completely wrong. Look up mandatory parole in Colorado for example. I as well as thousands of other former inmates are required to serve mandatory parole AFTER completing a sentence. Most people don’t know about this.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> I'm nitpicking one detail of your overall point here, but you didn't serve the time; that's why you're on parole. Colorado has mandatory parole period that applies on top of the base sentence of imprisonment for felonies. They may not be unique in doing something like that; the US has more than 50 different criminal justice systems, and most generalizations about them that aren't federal Constitutional mandates have exceptions.

ams6110 8y ago

Why is this being downvoted? It's the same thought I had. Parole is early release. You are not on parole if you serve your full sentence. I don't know how good behavior credits factor into this. Typically a prisoner can get a significant reduction in time served for good behavior, but I don't know if that really means early parole or actually full release from the sentence.

iseeyoubydesign 8y ago
people are down voting because there is a political war going on between "criminals" and "prudes". People that want strong decency laws and those that want freedom regardless of decency. Simply put , there are many gray areas on many different dimensions

excalibur 8y ago

The overarching problem is that it is usually excessively inconvenient, to the point that parolees are being set up to fail. Rather than being designed to keep people on the straight and narrow, many systems appear designed to funnel people back into prison. When they get there they then face the remainder of their original sentence, meaning that it was effectively EXTENDED by the length of time they were on parole rather than shortened.

EpicEng 8y ago
Sure, and we can debate that, but it's not what I was responding to. The idea that he had technically served his sentence, but is on parole, makes no sense.
- pureliquidhw 8y ago
  The opening line says he served 4.5 years. The parole started after he was released, after having served his time. edit: after more research it seems my understanding of parole's place in the criminal justice system may have been incomplete. Also there is a distinction between parole and probation that I had never noticed.

asnyder 8y ago

He said he served "additional parole" on top of his time served.

nimbius 8y ago

I’m afraid you’re completely wrong. Look up mandatory parole in Colorado for example. I as well as thousands of other former inmates are required to serve mandatory parole AFTER completing a sentence. Most people don’t know about this.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> I'm nitpicking one detail of your overall point here, but you didn't serve the time; that's why you're on parole. Colorado has mandatory parole period that applies on top of the base sentence of imprisonment for felonies. They may not be unique in doing something like that; the US has more than 50 different criminal justice systems, and most generalizations about them that aren't federal Constitutional mandates have exceptions.