People should start giving some consideration to how the Parole Board is conducting the 0.100 paroleability hearings. The Myers, Addleman, and other cases, as well as the so-called 1400 Bill, all tell the Board to restructure our minimum terms in a manner reasonably consistent with the SRA.
So the Board spent years and about a million dollars restructuring our minimum terms reasonably consistent with the SRA and the applicable court rulings.
But now when we get to the end of that restructured minimum term the Board sees us, deems us unfit for parole, gives us no written reasons and adds anywhere from 12 months to the end of your maximum term to your minimum.
Now excuse me, but I believe legislative intent when they enacted the SRA was to slowly phase out the old guidelines people, and to decrease Board membership according to workload.
It seems to me the Board has conspired with one another to undermine legislative intent and the rulings of the Supreme Court.
But how do we prove this? Well, we need to get all of us old guidelines people who have gone before the Board for 0.100 hearings and got fucked, together in a class action suit. It is my estimate that 80% of the people seen on 0.100 reviews get found to be unparoleable and receive more time.
Now before the SRA came into effect 80% of the people who went to parole hearings at the end of their minimum term got paroled!
Denial of parole at the expiration of your minimum term should be the exception, the Board is denying everybody and they are giving out big time.
I have about 15 people on my "fucked by the 0.100 list" and the list is growing every day. We need a big list so start taking down names for us.
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login