Did you know parolees are really mistreated in Texas? They are protesting parole restrictions -- specifically Condition X. Condition X applies mostly to sex offenders. It limits where they can work, where they can live, their internet access, and, in some cases, who they can date.
Mary Sue Molnar says Condition X is unfair. Her 22-year-old son had sex with his 16-year-old girlfriend. I believe they call that statutory rape. Anyway, he got deferred adjudication - a mere slap on the wrist. When he later was caught with drugs and alcohol in violation of his deferred adjudication stipulations, he was sent to prison. She says, "You're looking at a man who [because of Condition X] cannot come up with the money for the order to pay probation fees, treatment fees, polygraph." Maybe he should have considered that before he violated the terms of his probation. Since we know he has trouble abiding by the rules, he needs to be strictly watched
Attorneys challenging Condition X say that when the Parole Board considers putting a convict under Condition X, the inmate doesn't know what evidence is presented against him and has no opportunity to respond. He can't even be sure the Board members have read his file. I say if Condition X is so unfair, then both the offenders and society would be better off if the offenders just completed their sentences in prison. That way, they don't have to worry about Condition X at all.
"Criminals battle parole restrictions." The Dallas Morning News; November 12, 2008; p. 6A.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
If only our judges had your wisdom Essie!!
I received a comment about Mary Sue Molnar that I chose not to publish, because I have not checked out the websites it mentions and I don't want to put something "iffy" on here. I did, however, google "Mary Sue Molnar" and came up with a petition she is involved with. It demands the release of a convicted rapist in Oregon. The petition states that the rapist was not guilty of the crime, that, in fact, he did not even know the victim. However, it also says that the victim accused him out of revenge because he had said he "didn't want to be with her." I wonder if he is in the habit of going up to total strangers and stating he "doesn't want to be with" them? Sounds fishy to me!
Post a Comment