By mandating parole hearings for the evilest juvenile criminals every five years, the TKEA severely harms victims.
What’s Wrong With Parole Hearings?
Parole hearings are extremely traumatic. Victims re-live the crimes and conditions they suffer from as a result of the crimes, such as PTSD and anxiety, flare up. They endure flashbacks, nightmares, panic attacks, etc.
Why Do Victims Partake In Parole Hearings?
Some people will wonder why victims don’t just skip parole hearings if they are so traumatic. For many victims, participating in parole hearings is a moral obligation. Murder victims’ families feel obligated to be a voice for their dead family members who cannot speak for themselves. And victims are often compelled to prevent the injustice of an early release.
Victims also feel compelled to partake in the parole process due to fears for their own safety and the safety of others. Such fears are reasonable, given the high rates of recidivism. Learn about the dangers of early release here. Also see here for an example of an early release that resulted in a victim being hunted down and killed by a rape suspect.
Why Do So Many Victims Oppose Release?
Violent crime victims are not all the same. They do not all share the same views regarding justice. Some forgive the criminals and support their release. Some victims have no strong opinion as to whether or not the offender should be released.
Many victims oppose early release for the criminals who destroyed their lives and see the offenders’ early release as an injustice. Release allows the criminals to move on and enjoy a normal life, a leisure that is not afforded to victims of serious violent crimes. Many murder victims’ families believe it is unfair that the murderers should experience the freedoms they robbed from their dead family members.
Some victims both forgive the criminals and oppose release. They want the criminals to find redemption from the inside of prison, not from the outside.
SB 256 proponents will attempt to portray us as angry, overly-emotional, and unable to move on. Victims who support releasing their victimizers, offender advocates claim, are enlightened and correct in their views. But the reality is that victims oppose the release of our victimizers because we have legitimate concerns about our own safety, the safety of others, and justice. Our position opposing the release of our victimizers is not less correct than the positions held by victims who support their victimizers’ release. Our views are just different. We should not be characterized as being hateful and unable to move on due to our desire for our victimizers to receive punishments that fit their crimes and protect society.
Imagine yourself in our positions. Imagine a young man breaks into your 94-year-old mother or grandmother’s home, tries to rape her, and beats her with a heavy metal flashlight, using enough force to kill her and to and to engrain her brain matter into the walls of her home. Imagine a young man invades your 98-year-old mother, grandmother, or aunt’s home, strangles her to death, and sexually abuses her dead body. Imagine being kidnapped and repeatedly raped and threatened with murder.
Would you want the criminals to be released?
Most of you probably would not.
Victims who understandably oppose release should not be punished with repeated painful parole hearings.
The Five Year Plan Of Terror And The Cycle Of Trauma
Ohio law previously allowed a maximum 10-year period between parole hearings for all criminals in the adult system, including those who have committed their offenses as juveniles. But the Teen Killer Empowerment Act requires that juvenile felons be eligible for parole every five years. By slashing parole continuances in half, the TKEA traps victims in a cycle of trauma.
As explained above, one parole hearing is traumatic enough. But under the Teen Killer Empowerment Act, violent juvenile criminals are entitled to up to eight or nine parole hearings in their lifetimes. A 17-year-old rapist who doesn’t succeed in killing his victim gets his first parole hearing at age 35. Then another at age 40. Then another at age 45. Then more at ages 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, and 75. Let’s say he lives to be 75. That’s nine parole hearings for one rapist.
That’s nine times the victim will take time out of her life to prepare for and participate in the parole hearing.
That’s nine times the victim will recount the details of the rape to the parole board.
That’s nine parole hearings that will result in nightmares.
That’s nine parole hearings that will result in flashbacks.
That’s nine parole hearings that will result in panic attacks.
That’s nine parole hearings that will put the victim in fear for her life.
That’s nine times the victim will anxiously await the parole board’s decision, wondering if this will be the time where her fears come true and her rapist is released.
This is exceedingly cruel.
And this all assumes (1) the rapist isn’t ultimately paroled and (2) the parole board doesn’t give the rapist even shorter amounts of time between parole hearings. Under the best case scenario, the victim of one juvenile rapist endures nine parole hearings.
Again, this is extremely cruel.
And what if the survivor was victimized by two juvenile rapists? In that case, she could wind up participating in 18 parole hearings in her lifetime. What if there were three juvenile rapists? Or four or five? After all, we are always hearing from juvenile offender advocates about how juveniles are more likely to act in groups. A victim of three juvenile rapists could experience up to 27 parole hearings. A victim of four juvenile rapists could experience up to 36 parole hearings. A victim of five juvenile rapists could experience up to 45 parole hearings. And it goes on and on. And again, we are assuming that in these scenarios, (1) none of the rapists are paroled and (2) the parole board gives the rapists the maximum continuance periods between parole hearings.
OCSF believes that a rapist should not be entitled to nine parole hearings. No victim should endure that amount of re-traumatization. Allowing a rapist to re-victimize his victim so many times is the height of cruelty. We should all agree that victims should not have to relive the nightmares so frequently. This should not be controversial.
The five-year plan of terror traps victims in a cycle of trauma. Even after making it through this parole hearing, we know that we will have to go through another parole hearing in five years and then another one five years after that and another one five years after that and every five years until we die or until the criminal is released. We will remain unable to move on and heal because we will have to keep reliving the nightmares that destroyed our lives.
One might argue that five years is a long time. But not when it comes to reliving the violent crimes that shattered our lives. Sure, if you go to a high school reunion or a family reunion every five years, then that sounds like a long time between those reunions. But if you are enduring an invasive, painful, and soul-crushing experience that greatly interferes with your ability to live your life, then five years is not a long time. Imagine, for example, having a major surgery every five years. Imagine burying a family member every five years. Imagine being raped every five years. Five years is an extremely short amount of time when it comes to reliving a violent crime.
Not only have the criminals victimized us, but the criminal justice system that was meant to protect us is victimizing us on behalf of the criminals.
By forcing us to relive these nightmares so often, the criminal justice system is victimizing us. Not only have the criminals victimized us, but the criminal justice system that was meant to protect us is victimizing us on behalf of the criminals.
The reason for mandating parole hearings every five years instead of every 10 years is to give LaRosa, Ramsay, and other felons a better chance of release. But by forcing us and other victims to endure parole hearings every five years you are literally torturing us. The Ohio Legislature has sent a clear message to victims of juveniles–it is more important to give rapists, murderers, and other violent criminals a better chance of release than it is to allow us to have peace.
Apparently, the 133rd Ohio General Assembly cares more about violent criminals than about victims. Let’s hope the 134th General Assembly has at least some concern for victims.
A Shattered Promise: Retroactive Sentence Reductions
The retroactive nature of the Teen Killer Empowerment Act renders it even more cruel. First, because victims were not planning on attending parole hearings or other hearings regarding the criminals’ sentences, they do not make necessary preparations, such as preserving documents or registering for victim notification. This puts them in an unfair position.
Then there’s the emotional impact. Victims suffer especially intense pain when the criminals’ sentences are retroactively reduced. Trauma is worse when it comes in a shock. All the suffering victims endure at parole hearings and other types of hearings is intensified when they did not expect those hearings.
We were given a promise by the criminal justice system that this man would live out the rest of his life safely behind bars, and Ohio lawmakers have now broken that promise.
Great niece of Margaret Douglas
Retroactive sentence reductions are a cruel betrayal from the justice system. Victims were promised that the offenders would serve a certain amount of time, perhaps their lives in prison. Victims walk away from life and long sentences with the belief that they will not have to worry about the assailants getting out and navigate the criminal justice system for a certain period of time if ever. But retroactive sentence reductions callously break those promises into a billion pieces. As explained by Margaret Douglas’s great-niece: “We were given a promise by the criminal justice system that this man would live out the rest of his life safely behind bars, and Ohio lawmakers have now broken that promise.”
How Has SB 256 Impacted Victims?
Read statements from the grandson of Marie Belcastro here and here.
Read a statement from the great-niece of Margaret Douglas here and here.