New article from Page Croyder

As an employee with the Division of Parole and Probation, I wanted to clarify some of Page's comments about the Charles Owens' case. Yes, the Division of Parole and Probation (DPP) did request a warrant for Mr. Owens based on two new drug charges and yes, the Maryland Parole Commission (MPC) issued the warrant. What is not mentioned here is that Mr. Owens was found not guilty on the felony drug charges and the other charges were Nolle Prossed. At that time, the Parole Commission changed the warrant to a subpoena, as the basis for his violation was the new charges. The only other charge was a technical violation for failing to work. In this economy, it is difficult for those without a criminal record to obtain employment. Requesting a warrant for technical violations on offenders in the Violence Prevention Initiative (VPI) is common, but Mr. Owens was not in VPI, which was also misleading in her blog. MPC acted appropriately in changing the warrant to a subpoena. There is no way that MPC could predict that Mr. Owens would later go out and shoot someone. VPI is as close as we can get to predicting which offenders are likely to shoot someone and it works very well, but it obviously cannot predict every shooter. Again, Mr. Owens was not in VPI. There is no crystal ball and if anyone has such abilities, please share, as we could end all violence in the City.