Ideological Blindness

No sooner do I write in Reflections on 2009  that some advocates have a hard time perceiving what other people are saying than Mary Joel Davis steps up to prove my point.

Davis founded and runs Alternative Directions, a non-profit agency that works with prisoners and attempts (commendably) to integrate ex-offenders back into society.  She began her attack on my article with, “Can anyone say conspiracy theory?”  Um, conspiracy with whom to do what? 

We never find out.  But she stated as fact that I am “completely against diminution credits for prisoners and the state’s system of mandatory release from prison…”.  In all my writings on the parole system, I never said such a thing.  I don’t believe such a thing.   What a ludicrous interpretation to make. 

In Early Release for Bad Behavior I criticized a system that awards good-time (diminution) credits to prisoners before they earn them.  I also criticized the Department of Correction (and later the Parole Commission) for consistently failing to revoke good-time credits for bad behavior.

This is vastly different from opposing all good-time credits.  But to a passionate advocate, criticizing any part of a system apparently is the same as rejecting all of it.

In my article I stated that a parolee named Charles Owens was released from prison early after he got to keep all of his good-time credits despite several serious prison infractions.   Ms. Davis claims that this was an attempt to “make it sound” like the Parole Commission exercised its discretion to parole Davis, rather than being released because he had enough credits.  Huh?

Then she claimed that the Parole Commission had “no sound basis” to keep Owens in prison on a parole violation.  Here she unwittingly underscored the point I was making.   “No sound basis” is a euphemism for a minor parole violation.  While the Violence Prevention Initiative tries to keep violent offenders off the street using minor violations, parole commissioners often will not.  Owens, after parole commissioner David Blumberg changed his warrant for arrest to a subpoena, went out and shot someone with a gun. 

And when I mistakenly called that shooting a murder instead of an attempted murder—and corrected it immediately on my own initiative—Davis assigned to me a deliberate intent to “spin” my own agenda, even though the difference between murder and attempted murder made no difference to my illustration.

One of these days I hope that some advocate will take off the ideological blinders, carefully read my articles, and simply disagree with what I actually am saying, rather than distorting my statements.  For example, how about saying, “I disagree with Page’s position that violent offenders should be locked up for minor violations of parole or probation, and here’s why.”  Wouldn’t that be refreshing?  Wouldn’t that actually contribute to a meaningful public discussion of an issue?

What I find the most interesting about Ms. Davis’s response to my article, however, is the fact that she, who is not an employee of the state Department of Public Safety, was obviously fed information about Charles Owens that state officials will not release to the press or public, citing Maryland law.   In other words, some officials will obey the law if they can hide their actions behind it, but feel free to leak information to mouthpieces like Davis if they think it will justify them.  (This seems to happen when I mention Blumberg in an article.)

Well, on to 2010.  Human nature will not change.  But perhaps some things can be changed in the coming year to improve public safety.  My New Year’s wish is that it won’t take some monstrous tragedy to do it. 

For example, notice how the abduction and murder of an Eastern Shore girl has led to a proposal to disallow good-time credits for child molesters because the suspect is a convicted child molester?  It’s a wrong-headed response.  But it’s what we get when we tragedies and political responses drive reform rather than thoughtful consideration.