Marc Benjamin and Pablo Lopez | The Fresno Bee
The man who went on a rampage at a Fresno meat processing plant Tuesday had been released from parole after only a year over the objections of his parole agent.
State officials say shorter paroles are appropriate when ex-convicts demonstrate they can stay on the straight and narrow. But parole agents argue that tragedies such as Tuesday’s can result from shorter paroles, and they say the state is abbreviating paroles to save money.
Lawrence Nathaniel Jones, 42, shot four coworkers Tuesday — killing Salvador Diaz, 32, and Manuel Verdin, 34 — before turning his gun on himself. A third victim, Arnulfo Conriqquez, 28, remained in serious condition Thursday at Community Regional Medical Center, and a fourth victim, Fatima Lopez, 32, was treated at Community on Tuesday and released…
Jones was released from parole May 1 after 11 months.
A few years ago, most parolees weren’t considered successful until they went two years without violations, and many had to remain on parole for three years without violations, said Melinda Silva, president of the Parole Agent Association of California and a parole agent in the Sacramento area.
Even a year is too little time for ex-convicts to demonstrate that they are clean and lawful, Silva said, especially if — like Jones — they have a long drug, alcohol or criminal history.
“We do ourselves, the community and the parolees a disservice by letting them off (supervision) early,” she said…(Full text at Fresno Bee)
Paco’s sources have filled in some of the blanks for us.
The Unit Supervisor “DOP‘d” (rejected) the discharge recommendation, forwarding it to the District Administrator (DA), who concurred with the recommendation to discharge. The BPH then discharged the offender in concurrence with the US and DA, neither of whom knew the offender.
On condition of anonymity, one irrefutable source reports, “The US was an annuitant who was given marching orders to discharge parolees. He knows he fucked up now, but he did what he was told. Good luck getting him to publicly admit this. The Acting DA signed off because he didn’t want to disagree with the annuitant.”
So, a greedy retiree made a bad call, doubtless fearing his services would be terminated should he fail to DOP retain actions. Then, the acting DA went along with the greedy gutless old fart because s/he didn’t want to be seen as contradicting the retiree. After all, it may have hurt his feelings.
“Only the agent can say she did what was best/prudent,” says the same insider. “The other two get to live with it. Especially the annuitant.”
Unfortunately, 2 human beings don’t get to live with it at all–Their survivors get to live with it.
In that context, Paco feels no sympathy at all for those in CDCR who must “live with it.” -
As documented in the comments thread, several readers insist Paco’s source erred in asserting the acting DA concurred with the Retiree US and DOP‘d the AOR‘s retain recommendation. They claim the acting DA is receiving undeserved heat as a result of the alleged error.
I spoke with one agent at length and given the detailed knowledge of the case he expressed, I am convinced my source was misinformed on that one matter.
Insofar as I have yet to receive a copy of the “Vote Sheet,” I relied on the word of a known source that the facts were as stated. As I now have 2 reputable individuals who insist my source is in error, it is clear I cannot stand by the contested assertion. So, let the record show the individual whom I did not name, along with several of his/her associates, insist the acting DA has been wrongly accused. Thus, absent documentation to the contrary, these individuals must be taken at their words.
I apologize, without qualification, for any discomfort it may have caused anyone. Agents are asked to stop giving this person the blues.