Jane and Michael did an excellent job on this defendant, who in the 90's got a life sentence for having a machine gun and now receives another life sentence for his 7th DWI.

Don't you think life should be more than 9 years? The parole board paroled this guy on a life sentence after only serving 9 years for a machine gun carrying charge.

"One life sentence hanging over his head should have been enough, but not for Mr. DiCarlo," Assistant District Attorney Jane Starnes said during closing arguments Friday. "It wasn't enough to keep him from drinking, from smoking crack cocaine and from committing (another) felony."

Starnes told jury members that the least they could do was to give DiCarlo another life sentence.

* * *

He will not be eligible for parole until he has served at least 25 percent of his sentence, but that does not include good behavior, which could shorten that time.

A life sentence is standardized at 60 years, District Attorney John Bradley said.

"It's ridiculous how quickly he got out the first four times," Bradley said. "There was no doubt in my mind that the jury would give him a life sentence."



See the full article:

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/08/16/0816dwi.html

[This message was edited by Shannon Edmonds on 08-18-08 at .]

DiCarlo was released on his second consideration for parole. Note that he was first eligible for parole in 2004, a mere 7 years after being sentenced to life in prison. We notified the Parole Board of our opposition (resulting in an initial denial and set-off for two years) and, upon notification of his second eligibility date, even provided the Board members with a very detailed PSI, outlining his extensive criminal history and utterly unsuccessful response to opportunities at rehabilitation. See letter below:



This is not an isolated example. As politicians, special interest groups and some lawmakers have pushed for early release of "nonviolent" offenders, the Parole Board has begun expanding early release for offenders that clearly will repeat their crimes when released.

Sure, drug treatment is important. And, for certain first offenders committing low-level, nonviolent property and drug crimes, such an approach may be valuable, but this process is being used by liberals (and some who proclaim to be conservatives) to push for early release and decriminalization well beyond that group. And that's why you see cases like this.

Those pressures also resulted in an extremely poor supervision while on parole. DiCarlo admitted he drank EVERY DAY FOR the seven months while on parole and used crack cocaine (there were positive urines for cocaine) but no blue warrant issued until we indicted for a new felony.

Even then, to this day, the Parole Board has not moved to revoke parole. As usual, the Parole Board punts responsibility and waits until a trial occurs before doing its job to hold a hearing on the revocation allegations. Is it any wonder that criminals don't take this stuff seriously?

[This message was edited by JB on 08-16-08 at .]

[This message was edited by JB on 08-16-08 at .]

[This message was edited by JB on 08-16-08 at .]

[This message was edited by JB on 08-16-08 at .]

Your post, JB, mirrors my experience. Thank goodness your office has yet again sent this offender away for life. I'm glad he didn't kill anyone in his drunken driving, and you know that is just by the grace of God.

Dicarlo is yet another good poster child for denying parole to lifers.

Or, at least double-lifers.

DiCarlo went to SAFPF prior to being paroled. The parole officer said that DiCarlo was considered a maximum supervision offender (which means a whooping once a month office visit), yet they NEVER tested him for alcohol, and when he had a positive UA for cocaine, they sent him to outpatient. When he got kicked out of outpatient for using cocaine, they sent him to inpatient. When he showed up for his intake appointment for inpatient, he was drunk, so he was kicked out of that. Then he disappeared from parole and before they caught him, he checked himself into Austin Recovery Center. He did a half-assed job there, got out, immediately went back to drinking and cocaine, and less than 45 days later, got this 7th DWI. Yes, the parole system is broken, to say it mildly.

This agency should not exist in any form. It is the only state agency that I know that is specifically and intentionally designed to harm the public and put us all in danger.

You want to eliminate discretionary mandatory supervision (the one function for which the board is really needed) and go strictly to good time as a basis for release? Now that is really radical. You would still need someone to make revocation decisions.

If a jury gives a 60 year sentence the convict should not serve one second less than 60 years. No good time. Just the time adjudged.

There would be no need for revocation decisions.

Without good time then what is the point in being good behind bars? Without some form of early release as an incentive, guards would be getting their butts kicked left and right and no work would EVER be done in prison by prisoners (such as prison industries, as well as just the general maintanance of the prison itself), there would be an endless amount of disciplinary infractions - not to mention escape attempts, possession of contraband, smoking, cell phones, etc., etc.

This is sort of the problem that state jails have already, except state jails are not filled with hardened criminals doing serious time.

In any event, getting rid of parole just isn't going to happen.

Interesting.

When state jails were created, prison officials were asked if they could control the population without good conduct time. They said, No Problem.

When life without parole was debated for capital murder, prison officials were asked if they could control the population. They said, No Problem.

Last legislative session, they debated whether to extend no parole rules to mandatory minimumum 25-life sentences for serious sex offenders. Not one prison official came forward to say it can't be done.

Oh, and by the way, the feds, years ago, pretty much abolished parole. They seem to be surviving.

Having said all that, I'm do not think parole should be abolished. We have done well with the rule applied to sentences for violent offenders (50% served before parole, no consideration for good conduct time until 50% served). What we need to do is extend that concept to nonviolent crimes (25% served before parole, no consideration for good conduct time until 25% served).

Or, perhaps the 50% rule should be extended to anyone that receives a sentence of 60 years or more. After all, isn't a jury really saying for that person that they should serve a really long time? Not one jury would believe that 8 or 9 years on a life sentence meets that standard.

Much of this is also tied to the foolish notion that we can cure anyone with enough drug or alcohol treatment.

In contrast to what poster RSmith says, it is my understanding that State Jails are often filled with "hardened criminals". It has long been my understanding that experienced crooks would rather go to ID than State Jail, simply because there is no incentive for good behavior in State Jail.

I think we look at prison time the wrong way. Legislation could be introduced that would increase the amount of time spent behind bars for bad behavior behind bars, rather than reward good behavior.

The Feds have a pretty good idea. You get something like 6 months off a 10 year sentence if you are an exemplary behaved inmate and make reasonable efforts towards rehabilitation while in prison. That's it. That's that carrot that gets dangled. 6 months. None of this 2 for 1 or 30 for 1 good time.

Make a prison sentence mean what it means, damn near a serve all.

FORT WORTH -- Reliving the moments when Fort Worth police officer Dwayne Freeto burned to death in his patrol car a week before Christmas 2006 was clearly difficult Monday for civilians and emergency personnel who tried in vain to rescue him.

Samuel Lee Hilburn was driving 98.6 mph and was legally drunk at the time of the crash.

FORT WORTH -- After days of emotional testimony, Samuel Lee Hilburn was sentenced Friday to 13 years in prison for killing Fort Worth police officer Dwayne Freeto by rear-ending his squad car and trapping the officer inside the burning vehicle.

Hilburn will have to serve at least half of his prison sentence before being eligible for parole.

Control the inmates with privileges. If they behave they can eat.

R_Smith -

The prison can't force convicts to work, go to school, go to drug counseling, etc. Working in "prison industries" as you put it, does not necessarily lead to early release. There are numerous prisoners working in the furniture factory, bus barn, garment factory, mattress factory, auto shops, etc., who are doing so, simply because it's better than sitting in the cell all day - not because it's going to get them out sooner.

Since the system can't force the felons to work, the prison is not self-sufficient or self-sustaining as it could be, what with the thousands of acres and the potential for livestock-raising, cotton-ginning, soap-making and crop-raising that the land presents. If convicted crooks don't want to work, they don't.
If they want to eat, however, they do get to eat. Law-abiders have to pay for it.

As far as the humongous increase in disciplinary violations that would occur if there were no incentive to behave, so far this year (as of August 2008), there have been 8,514 reported "incidents" as the prison calls them, committed inside. This is on track to match or beat the 15,721 "incidents" of last year. Being an uneducated banjo picker, I can't say that the possibility of parole keeps those numbers below say, 20,000 per year. But I do wonder how many of the 15,000-plus incidents involved convicts who won't or can't parole anyway.

A convict who wants to behave will. One who wants to act like an animal, will.

Exit only.

It would be interesting to know how many incidents there are each year in the State Jails. Knowing that along with the populations of the respective systems (ID vs. SJ), one could then figure out the numbers of incidents per capita. Maybe someone smart could figure out which place has the most incidents per inmate. Since one place offers parole and good time, while the other does not, it might be interesting to know.

Regarding prison work, it is my understanding that good time also consists of 'work time' credits for time spent on the job, in school, or in treatment, and if a work-capable inmate refuses to work, they get a major case which could then result in reduction of time earning status as well as good time credits.

So while TDCJ can't physically force someone to go to work, school, etc., it certainly has the means in place to coerce someone to go to work and behave. Otherwise rec and commissary privileges would be lost, along with line class status and good time credits, not to mention phone calls and visits.

Convicts who want to behave will behave.

Convicts who want to kill, escape, use drugs, abduct, commit arson, bribe, stab, rape, extort, file frivolous complaints, chunk feces on guards, conspire with fellow gangsters in the freeworld to commit violence on the outside, conduct business on the black market and use false id to obtain Rachael Ray's magazine subscription will do so, whether or not they're subject to losing good time or visitation or commissary privileges.

Many, I mean many, of the defendants in our criminal cases which originate within the penitentiary have no good time, are in Seg, can't go to commissary, have no so-called privileges. The other half have the privileges, have good time, have the opportunity to parole on the horizon, yet still break the law.

If someone would grow a backbone and promote a prison policy of "...you are now a convicted felon. If you want to eat, we will feed you well, if you want to use the phone, we'll let you, if you want visitation, we'll make it happen, if you want to paint on handkerchiefs, we'll give you the Tempra, but you have to follow the rules. On the other hand,if you choose to act like a mindless animal, then you can sit in your cell until you're hungry enough to behave" then I believe my unit would have to be closed and I'd have to get a real job.

I agree with Greg. The policy should be that an inmate's time gets INCREASED for bad behavior. If convicts knew that their actions would result in increased time in the penitentiary, they would certainly be more apt to behave themselves.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JSH:
I agree with Greg. The policy should be that an inmate's time gets INCREASED for bad behavior. If convicts knew that their actions would result in increased time in the penitentiary, they would certainly be more apt to behave themselves.

---

Or at least, those who are capable in some sense of actually controlling their behavior. Of course, there will be those incapable of controlling their behavior, and really, most of the time, those are the ones who need to stay in longer anyway.

In case you missed this thread:

Parole Horror Stories

The 41 year-old burglar I reference therein recently received two 40 year sentences. We'll see how long that keeps in him. Don't hold your breath.

The only control the State and the Courts have over felons incarcerated is when there is a deadly weapon finding, which then limits the generosity of rehabber minded parole board member.

Who is currently on the parole board anyway?