Author Topic: Hawaii to hire successful parolees to serve on Parole Boards  (Read 1868 times)


  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 221
Hawaii to hire successful parolees to serve on Parole Boards
« on: August 14, 2013, 11:29:13 PM »
A new release I'd like to read

Hawaii to hire successful parolees to serve on Parole Boards

A spokesperson for the Hawaii Paroling Authority has announced that they are considering hiring successful parolees, former prisoners, to serve on Parole Boards. "Something about the way we have been conducting our Parole Board Interviews and our 42% recidivism rate reveals that we don't have the intuition, the leadership-communication skills, to experience when an inmate is incomplete or lying.* Often an inmate is telling us what we want to hear. We simply don't have the life-experiences, the training, to be able to tell when a parole applicant is incomplete, when he/she is dragging around unacknowledged perpetrations into present-day interactions. We just don't know how to create a safe space for truths to be told. For example: Inmate: "I know I'm going to go straight, I've learned my lesson." As opposed to, "I've done a lot of lying, so although I sincerely believe I've addressed the source of my addiction to deceit and lying, I honestly don't know if I'm lying now when I say that I won't resort to former patterns." The communication model used between inmates and staff [referred to as the adversarial communication model] does not support the open, honest, and spontaneous communication, zero significant thoughts withheld.

There are three premises at work here:
1) Most inmates have not been acknowledged (caught) for all of life's perpetrations. Upon parole, because of their core integrity, a parolee will unconsciously set up life to get caught for earlier perpetrations (the ones for which the legal system has yet to catch them), consequently, many end up in prison again.

2) A lie, even an unconscious lie told during a Parole Interview, will produce undesirable results. That is to say, if a Parole Board Member is unconscious, they might not hear the lie, the con— "Oh yes, I've learned my lesson." Or, the biggie, "I fully accept my part in the fight."  The truths would be, "I believe I've learned my lesson." and, "I accept responsibility for intending the fight."  What happens is the board often grants parole to an unconscious inmate, one still addicted to lying, one who has not acknowledged each of the cons they've run on others throughout his/her life (read About Lies and Lying and Reunion Conversations). In other words, because the parole board didn't catch the lie they become responsible (cause for) the consequences. In other words, a prisoner knows that parole board members are dragging around their own incompletes; in truth they are pretending to be more in-integrity, when in fact they are just as addicted to conning others. What's worse is, parole board members have yet to acknowledge their cons and so there is no experience of respect, if anything there is resentment in the space. Rare is a board member who has acknowledged that their leadership-communication skills are responsible for their childhood friends being in prison.

3) Inmates, during counseling-clearing-rehabilitation sessions, have absolutely no choice other than to mirror the integrity of the facilitator/coach/therapist; therefore the inmate can only be as open and honest as the facilitator is with, say, his/her own spouse or even the Warden. For example: Facilitators and staff withhold their judgments of the Warden (and certain prison conditions) from the Warden, yet expect inmates to be open and honest with them (the facilitator) during sessions. Rare is a prison staff/facilitator willing to do The Clearing Process —a communication exercise in which life's perpetrations are acknowledged; therefore they are dragging their own unacknowledged withholds and perpetrations into each communication with everyone. Withholds serve as barriers to the experience of communication. Put another way, an inmate can instantly tell when they are in the presence of another con, someone not quite honest, someone pretty much like all the teachers they've ever had, someone who can be conned.

I know of no prison that conducts weekend-long relationship-leadership communication-skills workshops for its inmates, the prison staff, and the parole board members.  Such workshops, facilitated by a qualified coach, address the correlation between integrity and results; processes are designed to recall and verbally acknowledge the first lies, thefts, and abuses—the perpetrations and incompletes from which all undesirable behaviors were generated.

Most inmates, if given a safe space to tell the truth, could tell you which staff members are out-integrity.* Because there are so many "bad" guards there is no experience of respect of the Warden; the thought goes something like, "Obviously you don't respect me because you've hired a staff member that we (inmates) can tell/know is involved in something unethical, one who is both verbally and non-verbally abusive to us. What's worse is that we can't bring it to your attention because of fear of certain consequences."

Addendum: Most everyone agrees that cons have in fact mastered the con. Cons are developing their leadership-communication convincing skills with each interaction in prison. Trust between inmates is quite common because perpetrations amongst and between them simply aren't tolerated; typical subtle dissing another, as is done in the outside world, has serious repercussions in prison. Inmates are committed to a code of respect unlike any in the legal business world. Parolees, upon starting their new job, are conflicted when they are dissed or treated with disrespect by another employee or even an employer; they don't see any way to resolve such abusive incompletes through to mutual satisfaction and so they stuff their upsets, which eventually become dramatized. A parolee's new employer must conduct regular clearing sessions, they must provide a safe space for upsets, judgments, perpetrations to be verbally shared. Most importantly, a boss must encourage truthful feedback as to what's going on within the organization; he/she must schedule feedback sessions having to do with integrity issues and welcome suggestions for efficiency and profitability. The present communication model used throughout the business world is not conducive for a parolee wishing to go absolutely straight (read Parole: The first 24 hours). One solution is the Community Support Group Project, specifically The Community Support Group for Parolees—it's about teaching the public (via TV) how to positively support parolees—at another level it's about supporting a parolee's rehabilitation by concurrently rehabilitating the community's leadership communication skills, the way of communicating that presently supports (causes) 42% recidivism.

* This is due in part because prison staff and parole board members themselves are not complete, they are out-integrity, they have not been acknowledged for all of life's perpetrations (lies, deceits, abuses). They have not done a clearing process and so their minds are partially clouded with unacknowledged perpetrations.

Note 1: A warden should conduct occasional anonymous surveys. For example: "Place a check mark alongside the name of an abusive guard/staff member." Typically, most guards will receive several votes; guards who need coaching/therapy will get lots of votes.

Note 2: Inmates and board members should each receive a copy of the parole interview so that they can review what worked and didn't work. Ideally a video showing each face as it talks during the interview. If an inmate is unconscious and not clear about responsibility he/she might say, "I fully accept my part in the fight." At that moment the board chair should say. "Thank you. Please review a definition of the word responsible" and then dismiss the inmate. In other words, do not correct or coach the inmate about responsibility during the interview. They must be clear about responsibility before the meeting. No one clear about responsibility would use the word "part."

Last edited 10/20/17