Ohio’s Broken Parole Review Process by T. Poelking

Forward by Christopher

Here in Ohio so called “old law” inmates (sentenced prior to April 1, 1996) and “new law” inmates (those sentenced after that date) serve vastly different amounts of time despite each being charged and convicted of similar crimes. Old law inmates must gain release through parole board decision.

Old law inmates routinely serve far greater amounts of time than their new law peers due to the subjectivity of the parole review process. This despite one’s acknowledged rehabilitation, family and community support, and definitive release plan.

In Ohio, ‘rehabilitation’ is one of the key mandates of the department of corrections. Yet this aspect of incarceration is lost by a parole panel that actively under weighs a prisoner’s rehabilitation. As an old law prisoner there are no set parole board guidelines for crimes committed prior to April 1996.

Around me are hundreds and hundreds of new law inmates.   Even these prisoners recognize these disparities and will be the first to tell you that they are thankful they don’t have to face Ohio’s subjective parole review process.

Ohio’s dual laws are a problem for Ohio’s institutions and the successful outcome of the rehabilitative process. This essay, written by a new law inmate, touches on some of these aspects.


Ohio’s Broken Parole Review Process

How can a state validate that two people can commit the same crime, yet one does 25 years and another does 10? States that have multiple laws on their books (often referred to as ‘old law’ and ‘new law’) have this happen all too often. How can one person earn ‘good days’ toward an early release and the other not, yet both committed the exact same crimes and were charged with the exact same thing? One person can get 90 days off of his sentence and the other person cannot. Where does this seem fair? It happens all the time.

Law makers say “truth in sentencing” yet one prisoner will gain release before the other. Another prime example is ‘flat time’ and ‘indefinite time.’ The person serving the flat time doesn’t care about causing trouble in prison, but the guy doing indefinite time gets punished for this, not only by the prison but also by the parole board. If you get a guy who doesn’t care as your cellmate or ‘bunkie’ and causes you to receive a write up or ‘ticket’ (for rule infraction) as a result of his actions, the guy serving the indefinite sentence gets punished twice.

A state with multiple overlapping laws on its books needs to find a solution for this. How is it that a law can be passed where one must register for being a violent criminal, arsonist, sexual predator or sex crime offender,  and that law can come into force retroactively, but can’t address the issue where one person will receive an indefinite sentence of 5-25 years and the other a definite sentence of only 5 years for identical crimes?

Then there are those that are serving life. What is a life sentence? In Ohio and in many other states this is not defined. If a person serves 25 years, is a model prisoner, does all the programs that are available, in Ohio he is denied parole by the parole board time and again, with the panel simply saying parole is denied due to “nature of the crime”.

You as a prisoner have been judged by a court of your peers and sentenced to a specified term, but a parole panel deems your crime deserves more time than what a court intended. This despite a prisoner’s rehabilitation, and strong family and community support. How is this possible? I’ve seen guys do 40 years on a 15 year sentence, and yet are still being punished despite personal change and rehabilitation.

Here’s an idea to solve this disparity and prevent parole board biases from clouding objectivity. Send the decision back to the sentencing judge or court, not some panel with people who aren’t part of a court of law. Or define exactly what a life is worth, 25, 30, 40 years. If not, then call it what it is: natural life.

T. Poelking 396-038 (MACI) (OH)

Please like and share this post with others and THANK YOU for following!

You can read other guest written posts as well as every lettersfromchristopher post from March 2019 through April 2021 in the book titled ”Behind the Wall: A Prisoner’s Journal.” Available in paperback and ebook on Amazon.

9 thoughts on “Ohio’s Broken Parole Review Process by T. Poelking

  1. RTK

    Under Ohio’s new law my son would have been home 11 years ago. Ohio parole board is controlled by a handful of career appointees that have influenced new appointees negatively. Something needs to change. This director was initially engaged with parole board reform but then covid struck and everything went back to the status quo.

  2. Frivolous Squirrel

    I never knew that the Ohio parole board is like that. I have a friend in prison here in California and he says the parole board here isn’t biased like Ohio’s. They have something they follow when making decisions, guidelines of some sort. I wonder what parole boards are like elsewhere. Will you be writing about that?

  3. L. Beagle

    The Ohio parole board began adhering to the SDMF or Structured Decision Making Framework in 2021. According to the parole board it allows for a ”holistic” evaluation of a case.

    1. Em

      “holistic” approach? What the hell does that even mean? They’re definitely not sdhering to anything, not SDMF not anything

  4. Question: How can a reasonably educated, parole board member with a respectful professional career make such unreasonable decisions when it comes to addressing a prisoners parole qualification especially when that inmate has satisfied all of the rehabilitation requirements include “time” when old law is compared to “new” law?

    Answer: As things stand, there is no answer, it defies logic; but it does not defy the power of outside influences. Left to their own devices, I believe parole board members would act in accordance with the rules they helped establish, but outside influences are an oversized factor that gets in the way of a parole board members logic, common sense and professionalism.

    Result: In the final analysis, they are pseudo politicians in that they say a lot of what people want to hear, and do just the opposite when it comes time.

    Bottom Line: they are no different than the distrustful politician they are emulating.

  5. Frivolous Squirrel

    Kupper Kalhoon you are correct to say that but I don’t understand why ohio parole board can’t be objective. Surely there’s professionals on the panel with integrity. Is the influence of a few unprofessional biased members that substantive? If other states can offer a parole review process with integrity and objectivity then why can’t ohio?🤔

    1. Frivolous Squirrel: I must admit my exposure to the Ohio Parole board is limited due to my exposure to their biased determinations. In my exposure to them I have come away with the impression that they are totally and unabashedly disposed to outside influences. One not have to look any further than the old sentencing guide lines against the new and if anyone can convince me that the absence of a grandfather clause, in the new law, is not the result of outside influences then I will buy that bridge in Brooklyn from you.

      Further, can anyone tell me why a moderately weighted factor (outside influence) in the parole boards decision regarding parole, trumps (no pun intended) the boards guidelines regarding the criteria of elements an inmate needs to meet regarding rehabilitation while incarcerated?

      If an inmate who is incarcerated for a decade or two continues to meet and even exceed the criteria for rehabilitation and is repeatedly denied because of a single outside voice, then I would say that the system they created is broken …. er I mean is influenced.

  6. Jennifer

    I just read The Trauma of Incarceration and I’m near tears knowing that this man killed himself. Why isn’t anyone helping these people? Where’s the mental health?? 😒💔

Leave a Reply