FEDERAL JUDGE RULES THAT TEXAS PAROLE OFFICIALS CAN BE SUED

Parolees are entitled to rights at the cost of public safety

Friday in Austin, U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel ruled that Texas parole officials can be held personally liable by inmates suing over restrictive sex-offender conditions required of them, even though they were never convicted of a sex crime. The judge excoriated state officials for their persistent refusal to provide due process hearings before imposing the sex-offender restrictions. Yeakel brushed off arguments by the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and the Texas Board of Criminal Justice that the state can unilaterally impose the restrictions without a hearing to ensure public safety.

I have always contended that the purpose of parole was first and foremost the protection of the public, rather than all that social work gobbledygook about rehabilitating the offender. Unfortunately, some courts – and even parole officials – are more concerned with the rights of parolees than with the right of the law abiding public to be protected from crime and criminals.

Back when I was a parole agent, the state and federal courts agreed that as long as they were in prison and on parole, felons were not entitled to the civil rights - other than protection against cruel and unusual punishment - guaranteed to citizens in the Bill of Rights. Obviously that has all changed during the intervening years.

EDITOR'S NOTE: On protection of the public, Bob Walsh said, "You are an old fuddy-duddy with that protection of the public crap. Everybody knows that parole is now a housing and employment agency for ex-offenders, and a social engineering exercise for liberal academics. Public safety is ancient history."