Lady Justice does an odd thing. She upholds the law by her even-handed approach to those who commit criminal acts while weighing in the balances the good that one does in life with the evil that one does, and ocassionally, she metes out a just punishment. To do this is no easy task, and frequently, Justice must confront the issue of the law as it opposes the natural rights of man. Along with natural rights, we must use a drop of "common sense," and a judicious portion of the state's guidelines, statutes, and rules. Whenever these various strictures conflict, or confuse, the assurance that true justice is being served is hawked by the legal representatives to give the public a sense of safety. Of course, no body is 100% accurate at all times...but the release of hardened, embittered, and truly menacing men and women flies in the face of common sense. Those individuals, such as the now infamous person of Jesse James Cowan, who became the bad child star of the APA's theater of the absurd, are criminals one wants never to be released. Common sense should rule when making these life-altering decisions. And yet, it is common sense that too often has evaded the many collective minds of the Ohio Adult Parole Authority.
As stark contrast to JJ Cowan, Gregory DeJesus Vonhoupe' exemplifies some of the more worthy candidates for parole disappointed repeatedly by the APA's refusal to use common sense. For even as Mr. Vonhoupe' sat in his cell, JJ Cowan was set loose upon an unsus pecting Ohio population, to prey upon the kindness of elderly, dear, old grandmothers. Within four months of Cowan's release, he had killed...again. (For more background info on JJ Cowan, the Cincinnati Enquirer has several excellent articles and editorials, dates from September 22, 1996 to April 17, 1997.)
Again? Yes, Cowan was a murderer, presumably paroled for his good adjustment to prison and sterling behavior. Mr. Vonhoupe's criminal act was...well, if you will, take the time to read below the personal account of a man deemed too high of a risk to release onto your streets and into your grandmother's home. Hmmm....after reading Mr. Vonhoupe's account of how he continues to be denied his parole, one may well ponder if Lady Justice is blind, or simply addled by the incomprehensible decisons that your public servants, the APA, make when granting parole.
I was originally convicted in 1986 for several non-violent third & fourth degree felony offenses. I served almost three years before being released on parole. I have not been convicted of any crimes since that period. Nevertheless, on March 31, 1992 I was arrested for "allegedly" Promoting Prostitution by way of a "conversation" with an undercover policewoman in Franklin County. Subsequently, the charges were heard... and dismissed. Still, I was detained in the Franklin County Jail by the Ohio Adult Parole Authority to be returned to prison to answer to parole violations stemming from my arrest.
Unfortunately, I was returned to prison where a formal hearing was held by the Revocation Committee. I was found "not-guilty" by the Committee for the major parole violation of "allegedly" Promoting Prostitution. However, I was found "guilty" of a minor parole violation of "failing to report my arrest to my Parole Officer," Following the verdict, my parole was revoked and I was ordered to serve an enormous 30 months for the technical parole violation. After serving 15 months, the Ross Correctional Institution Review Committee (RCIRC) recommended me to be screened for a possible half-time early parole. Fortunately, the RCIRC granted me the hearing with the Ohio Parole Board. Unfortunately, the Parole Board denied me the early release and ordered me to complete the remainder of the original 30 months that the Revocation Committee had ordered me to serve.
Following the completion of the 30 month sentence, again I was taken before the Ohio Parole Board for yet another possible parole consideration. This time also, I was denied a parole due to my past criminal history and was given, inspite of my positive prison conduct, my participation in the self-help prison programs or the recommendation by the RCIRC, an additional 12 months of actual incarceration.
Nonetheless, 12 months later, once again I was taken before the Ohio Parole Board for another possible parole consideration. This time the Board informed me that their decision in my case would be stalled until it could be reviewed by a Full-Board Review Committee in Columbus, Ohio. Approximately 40 days later, I was informed by Ms. Barbara King, my case manager, that the Full-Board Review Committee had also denied me a parole and my sentence was to be continued for yet another 4 YEARS which is the total expiration of my maximum sentence date (1999). Thus, I am serving a full 7.5 YEARS for the minor parole violation of "failing to report my arrest to my Parole Officer."
Suffice it to say that this type of response to a non-violent parole violator who has committed a mere technical violation is categorically and eminently preposterous -- to say the least! Although I have tried to demonstrate good behavior and readiness for reinstatement of my parole, it has been literally impossible for me to satisfy the Ohio Parole Board for any realistic consideration. I took the opportunity to rehabilitate myself by subscribing to business correspondence courses and successfully graduating from the I.C.S. Paralegal Law School. I have done everything within my power that could possibly be done to rehabilitate myself for another review hearing for another possible reinstatement of my parole. For me to continue on another 2 years towards my expiration date, it would be beyond punishment... I'd say more like "psychological torture" as well as overkill. Does the punishment really fit the minor parole violation?