For the first time in my life I recently attended a parole hearing at the suggestion of a friend, who is actively working on criminal justice reform. The hearing was for a man who had committed a very serious violent crime as a young person and had received a life sentence some 25 years ago. He had used his years in prison to transform himself, had become a very reliable worker, for many years had not had behavior problems in prison, and had been paroled about five years ago.
Apparently he had had his parole revoked about four years earlier after getting drunk one night. Why getting drunk one night would lead to the revocation of one’s parole was not clear to me. There wasn’t any indication that the prisoner had done anything while on parole that would have in any way threatened the safety and security of the community. Now after spending four years back in prison participating in more rehab and educational services, he was trying to regain parole.
In attendance at the hearing were family and friends of the prisoner, and a former employer, for whom he had worked when he was initially paroled. The employer testified to what a valuable employee he had been and how completely trustworthy the employer considered the prisoner. A family member testified to the support he would have from family and friends, if he were to be paroled again.
But back to that bout of drinking. From the questions the members of the parole board were asking, it appeared that they wanted to reassure themselves that the man had changed in some way and were looking for reassurance that something like that would not happen again, if he were paroled. Is it really the case that we expect someone coming out of prison after more than 20 years to conduct himself as a “model citizen”? What sense would that make? Did the parole board members think that revoking his parole for this reason made sense? If they didn’t think it made sense, were they at liberty to say so? Or did they find themselves to be part of a system with their job being to execute the system and not to question it.
So the board members were asking and the prisoner, who was in no position to question the system, was doing his best to explain to the board how he had changed and thus why what had happened wouldn’t happen again.
I couldn’t help but have the sense that I was watching a play in which every one was acting, and no one really believed the premise of the play. In the end the board made some very positive and supportive statements to the prisoner, which seemed to indicate that they were very likely to grant him parole again. Hopefully, they will. But even if they do, the prisoner had spent the past four years in prison to whose benefit?
As I have thought about this experience it has occurred to me to ask what role we all as members of the community are playing in this drama, and what alternative drama might be possible. No doubt in many instances for a person to be successful in being paroled from prison, the person needs to have made substantial changes in how he relates to people. But doesn’t it also depend on the support of the community, the opportunity for safe and secure housing, for meaningful work, for friends to whom he can turn at times of stress?
If we think about it, successful parole must depend as much on the community, on family, and on friends as on the prisoner. But what official role does the prisoner’s community, family, and friends play in the process. If you think about it, doesn’t it make sense for whomever is monitoring the parole to have a relationship with the family, friends and the community?
Certainly this is very labor intensive for the official, the family, the friends, and the community. But maybe that is what a truly democratic society looks like, a society in which we are all involved in playing a role that assures the safety and security of our community and the welfare of everyone.
E. Martin Schotz, a Cummington resident, is a member of the Peace Task Force, FCCPR.