Florida Parole System Bests Kentucky

I am amazed, as I know you will be, that in Kentucky an inmate coming up for parole has no legal representation at his parole hearing. Think about that. Here comes this inmate who may or may not be literate, may or may not have any understanding of the parole system, and may or may not be able to express him/herself verbally, to stand before a 3-person parole board and in about 15-minutes convey the story of his life change in such a way that he successfully wins parole. I don't think I could do that!

To be fair, the parole board has, presumably had a chance to review the inmates records in advance. So these individuals, who often attend a parole hearing only by video conference, have the sort of knowledge of this inmate that paper documents can provide. Beyond that however, they have no sense of the person standing before them or who face appears on the video screen. It's up to the inmate to plead his/her case.

Now let's contrast this scenareo with the Florida Parole system in which an attorney appears on behalf of the inmate and another attorney appears on behalf of the State. Witnesses, such as the inmates minister, prison chaplin, former employer or teacher, may be called to appear and testify on behalf of the inmate or against him/her. The Board has access to the inmates' prison record of course, but also has a chance to really get a feel for who the inmates was, is and perhaps could be in the future.

My question is, which do you perceive as the most balanced and fair system? Kind of a no-brainer isn't it?

Kentucky Law Repealed as Unconstitutional

In a 5-2 decision today, the Supreme Court of Kentucky ruled that a law limiting where registered sex offenders can live is unconstitutional in that it attempted to be applied retroactively from its inception date of July 12, 2006. The court rulled that the law cannot apply to those who committed offenses before the day the original law was enacted. The law, that prohibits sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of playgrounds, daycare centers and schools also changed how the distance is measured.

In this ruling, the court said the law is punitive in nature and violates the ex post facto clause, or retroactive law, in the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits states from passing laws that increase punishment for old crimes. The restrictions will still apply to anyone convicted after July 2006. You may remember that the whole issue came to the Supreme Court because of ex-offenders who were now living peacefully in homes they owned prior to 2006. Enactment of the original version of the law meant that these individuals would, in some cases, have to sell their homes and move or be in violation of the law.

While the action today may be good news for some, I expect we've not heard the end of this and can just imagine the uproar that will ensue from those who follow the Salem Witch Trial philosophy of "kill them first and then ask questions."