5 ms·

Do California's parole rules allow parolees to associate with ex-felons? When I was released (federal prison, not California), my conditions of supervised rele

Do California's parole rules allow parolees to associate with ex-felons? When I was released (federal prison, not California), my conditions of supervised release prohibited me from associating with other ex-felons. This effectively makes illegal any kind of "support group" for newly-released people. Now that I'm way past my supervised release, I'm allowed to hang around a recently-released friend (14 years after my release), but he isn't allowed to hang around me because of the same rules. Weird system, it is.

deftnerd 11y ago
I think the rules apply to casual association to prevent former parolees from going back to the same social circles. I'm pretty sure the rules don't apply to official, especially court-ordered, encounters. Many parolees are required to go to AA or anger management classes, and those are full of other people in the same predicament. The same applies to halfway housing. I imagine that since this ride was under the control of an official non-profit, the contact was approved. I'm not a fan of the rules limiting free association and I think it should be considered a violation of civil liberties. I don't know if it's ever been challenged in the courts.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  Re some condition of parole being a violation of civil liberties, how would it be different than prison being a violation of civil liberties? I'm not snarking, I'm asking what the difference would be.
  - mainguy 11y ago
    IANAL, but if parole is just a way to more cheaply supervise someone still serving their time it seems like the same thing... Once parole is over though...well then it would be because you've finished your sentence.
    - clamprecht 11y ago
      It isn't as bad after parole, but it's still there. For example, I have lost my 2nd amendment rights forever, even though I completed the sentence ~13 years ago.
      - cmdrfred 11y ago
        I never noticed the asterisk on the constitution that said "*unless we deem that you are a criminal".
        deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
        toomuchtodo 11y ago
        I'm surprised the NRA has never raised this issue.
- x0x0 11y ago
  My understanding is that, because the convict could choose to finish his or her sentence instead, parole is given extremely wide latitude in terms of the conditions that can be set. That does set up other, stupid, situations where convicts who haven't been paroled and hence served their full sentences are given zero supervision after release because you can't force them. If you wish to be appalled, read this [1] discussing parole boards. For the same rationale as above, they are given incredibly wide latitude with very little review, and often no disclosure, behind their decisions. [1] https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/07/10/life-without-parole https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/07/10/life-without-p...
  - tsotha 11y ago
    This. Originally, at least, parole was viewed as a reduction in your sentence for keeping your nose clean while you were in prison. They let you out of jail, but technically your sentence isn't up yet. So legally they can pretty much do anything they could do while you were in.
marincounty 11y ago
It's just a bad rule. Two felons get out of prison and want to start a landscaping company. A old truck, a few tools, and a craigslist ad; you have the beginnings of a company. The felons were probally friends in prison, and trust eachother? Give these two felons a chance? I understand the rule if the felon belonged to a gang Before being incarcerated. Keep the stipulation. The rest of the guys/girls should be allowed to associate with other ex-felons. Sometimes, those of us who are not in denial, are one mistake, at one wild/desperate period in our lives of racking up a felony? Why make it so difficult for ex-felons to succed after being let lose? I just don't get it. No wonder some of these guys want to go back to prison--institutionalized--they term it? No, they just don't want to die on the streets of homelessness! I had a 65 year old ex-felon as a friend for years. His felon was 45 years ago. He had a slight disability(enough to notice), and for years he collected disability. Some young doctor decided to not renew his disability claim. He told me, "I will commit a nonviolent crime in order to keep a roof over my head!". I talked him out of it, and we got a lawyer to reaffirm his disability claim. (Ironic side story. I came home today with a note on my door from the U.S. Office of personnel management federal investigation service. My neighbor is applying for a security clearance? This neighbor is the last person I would trust with anything--let alone a security clearance. No he's not a felon, but should be--he's white, and got lucky in his shady business dealings. Will I talk to a dective--No--I just don't care anymore. The felons, I have known, I trust--crazy--huh?

deftnerd 11y ago

I think the rules apply to casual association to prevent former parolees from going back to the same social circles. I'm pretty sure the rules don't apply to official, especially court-ordered, encounters. Many parolees are required to go to AA or anger management classes, and those are full of other people in the same predicament. The same applies to halfway housing. I imagine that since this ride was under the control of an official non-profit, the contact was approved. I'm not a fan of the rules limiting free association and I think it should be considered a violation of civil liberties. I don't know if it's ever been challenged in the courts.

maxerickson 11y ago
Re some condition of parole being a violation of civil liberties, how would it be different than prison being a violation of civil liberties? I'm not snarking, I'm asking what the difference would be.
- mainguy 11y ago
  IANAL, but if parole is just a way to more cheaply supervise someone still serving their time it seems like the same thing... Once parole is over though...well then it would be because you've finished your sentence.
  - clamprecht 11y ago
    It isn't as bad after parole, but it's still there. For example, I have lost my 2nd amendment rights forever, even though I completed the sentence ~13 years ago.
    - cmdrfred 11y ago
      I never noticed the asterisk on the constitution that said "*unless we deem that you are a criminal".
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - toomuchtodo 11y ago
        I'm surprised the NRA has never raised this issue.
x0x0 11y ago
My understanding is that, because the convict could choose to finish his or her sentence instead, parole is given extremely wide latitude in terms of the conditions that can be set. That does set up other, stupid, situations where convicts who haven't been paroled and hence served their full sentences are given zero supervision after release because you can't force them. If you wish to be appalled, read this [1] discussing parole boards. For the same rationale as above, they are given incredibly wide latitude with very little review, and often no disclosure, behind their decisions. [1] https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/07/10/life-without-parole https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/07/10/life-without-p...
- tsotha 11y ago
  This. Originally, at least, parole was viewed as a reduction in your sentence for keeping your nose clean while you were in prison. They let you out of jail, but technically your sentence isn't up yet. So legally they can pretty much do anything they could do while you were in.

marincounty 11y ago

It's just a bad rule. Two felons get out of prison and want to start a landscaping company. A old truck, a few tools, and a craigslist ad; you have the beginnings of a company. The felons were probally friends in prison, and trust eachother? Give these two felons a chance? I understand the rule if the felon belonged to a gang Before being incarcerated. Keep the stipulation. The rest of the guys/girls should be allowed to associate with other ex-felons. Sometimes, those of us who are not in denial, are one mistake, at one wild/desperate period in our lives of racking up a felony? Why make it so difficult for ex-felons to succed after being let lose? I just don't get it. No wonder some of these guys want to go back to prison--institutionalized--they term it? No, they just don't want to die on the streets of homelessness! I had a 65 year old ex-felon as a friend for years. His felon was 45 years ago. He had a slight disability(enough to notice), and for years he collected disability. Some young doctor decided to not renew his disability claim. He told me, "I will commit a nonviolent crime in order to keep a roof over my head!". I talked him out of it, and we got a lawyer to reaffirm his disability claim. (Ironic side story. I came home today with a note on my door from the U.S. Office of personnel management federal investigation service. My neighbor is applying for a security clearance? This neighbor is the last person I would trust with anything--let alone a security clearance. No he's not a felon, but should be--he's white, and got lucky in his shady business dealings. Will I talk to a dective--No--I just don't care anymore. The felons, I have known, I trust--crazy--huh?