One more diatribe about the notorious Public Hearing
I hate
Public Hearings. They may be an
essential part of gaining freedom for old-timers in the Michigan prison system,
but I hate them. I testified at a Public
Hearing yesterday, and as usual, left in disgust. Let me explain.
Before a
certain population of the Michigan Department of Corrections can attain a parole,
they must first be grilled by one or two members of the Michigan Parole Board,
and especially by an Assistant from the Michigan Attorney General’s office. Department officials will quote state law
when explaining the reason for these hearings:
"A prisoner shall not
be given liberty on parole until the board has reasonable assurance, after
consideration of all of the facts and circumstances, including the prisoner's
mental and social attitude, that the prisoner will not become a menace to
society or to the public safety."
The agenda
at a Public Hearing is rather simple.
The Assistant Attorney General and the Parole Board members spend a lot
of time discussing the crime. A few
minutes are then spent on the prisoner’s accomplishments over the decades spent
behind bars. A Parole officer is then
asked to report on possible housing arrangements if the inmate is
released. And then the public is invited
to speak; first those who oppose the parole, usually friends or relatives of
the victim(s) of the crime, and then those who support the inmate.
HFP
sometimes sends a delegate when one of our friends comes up for parole,
especially if he or she has little outside support. The longer they remain in prison, it seems, the
fewer friends and family members either care or are still alive and are able to
testify. On occasion I’ve been the only
person to speak on behalf of a man being considered for parole. I’m proud to do it.
Here’s the
thing I find so completely distasteful: the stark difference between the “haves”
and the “have-nots!”
The men and
women from the Parole Board and the Attorney General’s Office drive up to the
stark little Public Hearing facility at the prison in their expensive sports
cars or Cadillac Escalades. They stride
into the meeting room dressed to the max.
Any and all could be on the cover of a fashion magazine. All are well-paid individuals, feeding from
the trough of the State of Michigan.
Then comes
the lowly inmate, in chains, escorted by a burly guard, dressed in sloppy
prison blues.
And the
difference doesn’t stop there. From the
moment the hearing begins, the prisoner is never allowed to forget what a
privilege it is to appear before these pillars of society. You can be sure that, after intense
questioning, sometime badgering, and sometimes outright abuse, the inmate will
be reduced to shaking and weeping before the hearing mercifully ends. Perhaps “breaking” the prisoner is an
unspoken goal or requirement. I am reminded
over and over again of accounts about how slaves were treated in our
country. I almost expect the prisoner to
reply, “Yes, Masta…yes, Masta.”
I keep
wishing that these public officials would stop to consider, There
but for the Grace of God go I.
Comments