Rhode Island Parole System Puts Innocent People In Jail

Rhode Island's Parole System is one of only three states that uses the lowest standard of proof for parole violation hearings

It makes parole violations so likely that innocent defendants make plea deals to avoid heavier sentences. The Rhode Island parole system, as currently configured, can and does put innocent people in jail. And many in power want to keep it that way. They cite it helps "judicial efficiency".

Example: The case of Jodi Johnson. In 1992, he pleaded no contest to robbery charges and was sentenced to 17 years, 7 to serve in the Adult Correctional Institutions and the remaining 10 suspended and on probation. In August 2004, he was arrested and charged with robbery in connection with a home invasion at an apartment on Douglas Avenue in Providence. The judge ruled the state presented enough evidence that Jodi Johnson failed to keep the peace and ordered Johnson to serve 9 of the 10 suspended years. In November 2006, Jodi Johnson was acquitted of the robbery charge in a jury trial. But he was still required to serve out his violation sentence.

According to the Rhode Island Parole System, one of the conditions of probation is that the individual keep the peace and be of good behavior. An arrest, to the system, is a sign that isn't happening. Jodi Johnson's arrest triggered a court hearing to determine whether he'd violated the terms of his probation and should be sent back to prison for some or all of the suspended sentence.

The challenge a probation-violation suspect faces is that the court need be only "reasonably satisfied" that he violated his parole. Nick Horton, a policy analyst with the nonprofit former-convict assistance organization OPENDOORS of Providence, said that is the standard courts use to decide whether to issue search or arrest warrants.

"Reasonably satisfied" means that the evidence presented would allow a reasonable person to believe a crime had been committed. It is less stringent than the "preponderance-of-the-evidence" standard, which requires that a majority of the evidence favor one side over the other, or the "beyond-a-reasonable-doubt" standard, which says a case must be proved to where the only question of it would be extreme or fanciful.

After a three-day hearing, the court ruled the state met the "reasonably satisfied" standard and ordered Jodi Johnson to serve 9 of the remaining 10 years. Johnson kept fighting the robbery charge, however, and in 2006 - in a criminal trial where the state had to meet the higher "beyond-a-reasonable-doubt" standard of proof - a Superior Court jury found him not guilty. But that did him no good in overturning the violation decision that sent him back to prison.

Under Rhode Island case law, once a judge rules that probation has been violated and imposes sentence, it doesn't matter if the charge at issue is eventually dropped or the defendant is acquitted at trial. The person stays in prison.

Jodi Johnson had been granted parole in January, and his supporters argue that that's not fair; if the probationer is found not guilty, they say, he shouldn't be punished for the arrest. But the law allows exactly that. In a state Supreme Court appeal of Jodi Johnson's case, the court pointed out that a revocation hearing "does not call for the 'full panoply of rights' normally guaranteed defendants in criminal proceedings" and that "the state need not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant has violated his [or her] probation." Some say that lesser standard of proof is creating an inferior standard of justice.

"It's a shadow criminal justice system," said Andrew Horwitz, supervising attorney for the Roger William University School of Law's criminal defense clinic. " ... There are no jury trials, no reasonable doubt. In some instances, hearsay is allowed."

Prosecutors vehemently disagree. The probation-violation system enables them to target repeat offenders, they say, and it allows for plea agreements in cases that would otherwise choke an already-strained court system. Horton said a vast majority of other states use higher standards of proof in their probation-violation hearings. Had Johnson been in the Massachusetts system, the state would have had to prove its case to the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard. But like Rhode Island, even if he'd been found not guilty at a subsequent trial, he'd still have to serve the violation sentence. "Rhode Island is one of only three states, with South Dakota and Alabama, that uses the lowest standard of proof," Horton said.

The REALITY

"You want out so bad," said John Prince of DARE, whose parole was violated in 1991 on a robbery charge that was later dismissed. "They'll say, plead guilty then [to the new charge], and get out in two years, with the four or five months you've already done. "But if you fight it, then they get mad because of the time and money. And if you lose, they're going to smoke you, give you the whole kitchen sink." Caught.net Note: the current system makes Citizens afraid to pursue their innocence.

1 in 31 Rhode Islanders were on probation or parole in 2007, the fifth-highest state ratio in the country. Rhode Island hands out longer probation sentences than many other states. Rhode Island suspended sentence was around five years, about twice the national average.

Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch said, "that's a sign of mercy, not vengeance." Probation and suspended sentences give defendants a chance to avoid jail time, provided they keep the peace. From the prosecution table, he said, probation is a favor, a gift of liberty to someone who, if the courts had the resources, would be in jail. A study backed him up, finding that Rhode Island's incarceration rate, 1 out of every 187 residents, ranked it 46th out of 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Governor Carcieri is against changing the status quo stating, "when considering the wide range of defendants and the possible new crimes for which they might be arrested, judges and prosecutors needed the latitude the current system provides."

ED ROOT Sr. from Cranston is an inmate at the ACI. He wrote in The Providence Journal in 2009: "With the unemployment rate in Rhode Island hovering at over 12 percent, I would like to comment on the state's parole process. As part of a parole plan, an inmate must follow all institutional rules, attend authorized programs as associated with their crimes, have a stable home environment, a phone and last but not least, a job. Can anyone out there please tell me how anyone behind these walls should be expected to do so unless he or she lies, knows someone, or enters a residential treatment program even if they are here at the Adult Correctional Institutions for a non-drug-related crime?
I feel the State of Rhode Island needs to revamp the way parole is handled and give prospective parolees the opportunity to get to the streets and try to get jobs on their own. Say within 30, 60, or 90 days? The Department of Corrections, on the other hand, couldn't care less if you have a job at all. Nor does it care if you are homeless."

Sniff Around This Site!

OR
Search Rhode Island Criminal Database or
RI Supreme Court Opinions & Orders

Due to volume, we only deal with electronic communications now (email).

-- ADVERTISEMENTS --

Checked with CSE HTML Validator