N
nuyuky
Guest
It seems to me that if the states offer a parole system, they should, by law, get the system right. Should discretionary parole be discretionary, then mandatory should be mandatory, but prior to ones good time release. Then, when you have followed the rules of the board, you should be released with the good time certificate in hand and unconditionally I might add. The (shhh) secret to getting the politicians to do what you want is not in the votes, but in voice. If it means another civil war, then so be it, but there are better ways to deal with corruption within our system. No, it's not in the courts, they are just as corrupt. It's in educating our people of what is happening within our system and to keep uneducated people from making stupid moves. How? Smack em upside the head! Back to my problem, The AK. statutes say that if one has two or more years to serve, then upon release, less good time, you will be put on mandatory parole until the maximum term. There are two different maximum terms according to Black's Law. I wonder which one they(Ak) are using to create "REVENUE". Let's say you get six years. If awarded good time, you get out in 4, but if discretionary parole comes around, you leave early, until good time comes around, then you are unconditionally released, but if mandatory parole comes around you should be released in between discretionary, conditionally, until you earned your good time, then you should be unconditionally released. That is what I understand of the parole statutes, not only in Alaska, but all over. Any input?