If you get tossed in jail for an alleged parole violation, how fast should the charge be heard, and decided, by a judge?
One person sitting in McHenry County Jail has been there since July. He was jailed for an alleged parole violation. He finally has a court date later this month.
What’s unfair about six months in the County pokey?
Let’s say the parolee is found guilty of the violation and his parole is revoked. Does he get credit for the time served? What if the remaining time on his sentence is less than six months?
But, worse, let’s say that the parolee is found not guilty of the violation and is released. Then he would have been held in the County jail for six months and can never recover that part of his life.
Parole violations should be scheduled and heard promptly by a judge. Where is the defense attorney who lets his client sit six months in jail without a hearing or a trial?
You never know who is interested…
3 months ago
12 comments:
What's his name? Most continuances are granted at the request of the defendant. Most inmates/parolees would do most anything to remain in the county jail as long as they can - close to family (if any) and in conditions generally far better than anything they will encounter in the dept of corrections. Until and unless you provide details of his court appearances and the results of each since his incarceration, this is nothing more than half truth. Identify him so we can check the court records ourselves. Don't just spoon feed us what makes your blog appear interesting.
Gus maybe he deserves to sit in jail. What were his original charges? Is he a danger to himself or others? What was his parole violation? Need more info.
So are you going to give us a name to check out in the court files, Gus, or is this just another dose of innuendo you're tossing out there to foster suspicion and contempt? To paraphrase Debra, we need more info to get to the truth of the matter. Don't even think about using "privacy concerns" to dodge the question. You have no problem naming names where there is only an accusation. Here we have a conviction so let's hear it.
C'mon, Gus, give us his name. Don't be a tease.
Sorry, Mike. No deal. Too much possibility of retaliation.
And, no, there is no conviction. Sitting in jail, waiting for a hearing or trial, does not mean "guilty as alleged."
I guess with parolees it's "guilty until proven innocent."
The person didn't call me to complain about the six-month "vacation"; rather, about another jail matter.
Gus, your "cop out" (pun intended) suggests that the sheriff's office a) either reads this stuff or b) is too dumb to figure out who has been sitting in a warm cell for these many months on a "parole hold." Parole or Probation, Gus? Which is it. There is a difference you know but in the end, the result is the same... that person HAS been convicted of a crime. All that's being decided at this point is where he's going to finish his sentence... on the street or back in the penitentiary. Again, this is a half truth meant only to inflame. If you actually had something, you'd be telling us. By not telling us, you're confirming this all to be a sham and it's just you trying to stir the pot. It's ludicrous for you to try to tell us this guy/gal is sitting there because the state's attorney keeps continuing the case. Pure B.S.
Mike, parole or probation? Like you said, in the end the result is the same. Yes, he was convicted of the original crime. No, he has not been convicted of violating his parole/probation. THAT's the difference.
Who said anything about the State's Attorney's being the reason for his sitting six months in the jail? You did. I didn't. Frankly, I don't think it's the SAO that is responsible for the delay in resolution.
His sitting there is not the fault of the jail or the sheriff's department. Are you feeling a little sensitive?
It's the system!
"Parole should not be confused with probation, as parole is serving the remainder of a sentence outside of prison, where probation is given instead of a prison sentence and as such, tends to place more rigid obligations upon the individual serving the term." (Wikipedia)
My point was simply that the "fault" of the matter lies with the guy sitting in jail. Your original post begs us to cry for this guy/gal when, in reality, he/she controls what happens once the charges are made. You know that and I know that but a lot of people don't. I wanted to make that point and now, I think, I have. 'nuff said?
When a person is confined, I don't agree that he controls what happens. He may or may not have close enough contact with his attorney, and his attorney may or may not represent him assertively before the judge.
If someone doesn't want to be in jail, or to have the problems you desscribe, they shouldn't put themselves in the position that leads of jail, prison, parole, or whatever. How about "everyone is responsible for their own behavior?"
hazeleyes, no diagreement with that.
But what about a situation where a parolee inadvertently finds himself in violation? Or believes he is not in violation?
And maybe isn't?
Last year I heard about a man who was jailed for disobeying an Order of Protection? Guess who bailed him out? The ex-, who held the OP. Then she gave him a ride to her house. Then she called the police because he was in her house and she wanted him arrested for violating the OP. The cop refused to arrest him.
But what if he had? The facts of a violation were there. Would that have been a just arrest?
Post a Comment