Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of February 2018. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil.
Related posts
-
AZ: I sent an Arizona man to prison for 290 years. His case still haunts me
Source: azcentral.com 8/26/24 I sent plenty of people to prison during my career as a judge.... -
Restricting Freedom of Movement Is a Favorite Tool for Repressive Regimes
Source: reason.com 8/26/24 Needing permission to travel hands a dangerous tool to authoritarians. When you don’t... -
Janice’s Journal: We Did It!
Thanks to almost 50 individuals, we did it! We raised $10,175 for the matching grant program...
Is “gang stalking” real? Perverted Justice was shameless in its use of gang stalking so we know for a fact it exists and people will practice it like a religion if given the chance. The question is how widespread is it? What do you think?
The Nightmarish Online World of ‘Gang-Stalking’ by Roisin Kiberd
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/aeknya/the-nightmarish-online-world-of-gang-stalking
Today I registered with the college campus police for the upcoming semester, as I have since attending. Like last semester, I was informed that if a car was driven to the school, they would need a copy of car registration and proof of insurance. Anyone else heard of this? Are sex offenders also bad drivers? I take the bus so I chose to keep my mouth shut and not bother asking, but I am very curious why this is a thing.
“Death, assaults and sex offenses: Life behind Central New York Psychiatric Center’s walls”
From Bill Dobbs: New York: Just published, a blockbuster report about conditions at Central New York Psychiatric Center near Syracuse. The center is a special locked facility where New York State keeps individuals who have already paid a price for sex offenses and served prison time. After incarceration, indefinite confinement is the next stop–not for anything they have done but for what the state believes they might do. In a constitutional twilight liberty vanishes on a hunch. New York’s facility is more commonly known as Marcy; for all practical purposes it is a prison with precious little hope for those inside. In addition to the horrid conditions, the larger human rights and constitutional concern is laws in New York and about 20 other states permitting such dubious confinement. New York’s responsible parties? Lawmakers and Governor Andrew Cuomo. Kudos to David Robinson and The Journal News for a year-long dig that produced this stunning expose. Check out the article and the letters from those inside! –Bill Dobbs, The Dobbs Wire
A New York State psychiatric center operated illegally with impunity while two dead bodies, 40 assaults and 25 sex offenses triggered police responses behind its walls from 2012 to 2016, The Journal News/lohud has found. The newly obtained tally of violence, roughly one attack per month, is part of 210 criminal incidents at Central New York Psychiatric Center. —-
Much of the violence involved the mentally ill men locked up there, and it unfolded without the independent monitor required by law. From rapes and beatings to illicit drug use and falsified treatment records, the incidents offered a rare look into problems inside the closely guarded psychiatric center, according to records obtained by The Journal News/lohud through Freedom of Information Law requests. MORE:
https://www.lohud.com/story/news/investigations/2018/02/07/central-new-york-psychiatric-center-crimes/1074161001/
Thanks Son, your words ring true……..
Man look at this Governmental list of citations I have in my Complaint. That’s how you argue universality with indisputable Gov. docs that they have to take judicial notice of. These are just Gov. docs and doesn’t include the entire seven pages of citations.
CA 0.8% recidivism rate. Figure 11 [p.30]…………………………………………………………………………..4
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) “2014 Outcome Evaluation Report”; http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 2010 Adult Institutions Outcome Evaluation Report; http://www.casomb.org/docs/sombreport1.pdf CA 2.4% total returned for new sex offense within the first year, 0.84% returned in the second year of release, and 0.28% for new sex offense in the third year, California sex offender management Board January 2008, table 3-2 [p.80]…………………………………………………………………………………….4
California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. http://www.casomb.org/docs/CASOMB_End_of_Year_Report_to_Legislature_2014.pdf. “Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the lives of registrants and those – such as families – whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety.” (p. 12)…………………………………….2, 3
California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231 Under the current system, many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of [who] are low risk offenders. As a result, law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the [lives] of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety………………24
California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30)………………………………………………………………………………………………..43
California sex offender management Board January 2008 http://www.casomb.org/docs/sombreport1.pdf CA 3.5% table 3-2………………………………42
California sex offender management video https://youtu.be/GBoy2FB27yg…………………………..4
Delaware Sex Offenders, Profiles and Criminal Justice System Outcomes, January 2008 http://cjc.delaware.gov/pdf/SO_report_2008.pdf DE Table 26, 3.1% REARREST 6 offenders and on table 27 3 Offenders were not found guilty of a crime that makes the percentage of people convicted of a new sex crime at 1.5%. Rearrests should never be used as a determining factor……………………………………………………………………………………………..43
Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, P. Langan, E. Schmitt, & M. Durose, Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released in 1994 (Nov. 2003) https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsorp94.pdf……………………………………………………………….85
Hanson, Karl. Declaration. https://www.eff.org/document/declaration-r-karl-hanson “Research has long shown that the longer an ex-offender remains free of arrests or convictions the lower the chance he will reoffend. In fact, most detected recidivism occurs within three years of a previous arrest and almost always within five years.”[p.8]………………………………………………..45
Hanson, Karl. Declaration. https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/024_hanson_decl_11.7.12.pdf, [p.1-2] “Contrary to the popular notion that sexual offenders remain at risk of re-offending through their lifespan, the longer offenders remain offence-free in the community, the less likely they are to re-offend sexually. Eventually, they are less likely to re-offend than a non-sexual offender is to commit an “out of the blue” sexual offence. Offenders whose are classified as low-risk by Static-99R pose no more risk of recidivism than do individuals who have never been arrested for a sex-related offense but have been arrested for some other crime. After 10-14 years in the community without committing a sex offense, medium-risk offenders pose no more risk of recidivism than individuals who have never been arrested for a sex-related offense but have been arrested for some other crime. After 17 years without a new arrest for a sex-related offense, high risk offenders pose no more risk of committing a new sex offense than do individuals who have never been arrested for a sex-related offense but have been arrested for some other crime. Based on my research, my colleagues and I recommend that rather than considering all sexual offenders as continuous, lifelong threats, society will be better served when legislation and policies consider the cost/benefit break point after which resources spent tracking and supervising low-risk sexual offenders are better re-directed toward the management of high-risk sexual offenders, crime prevention, and victim services.”…. “Thus, my colleagues and I concluded in our 2004 paper, blanket policies that treat all sexual offenders as “high risk” waste resources by over-supervising lower risk offender and risk diverting resources from the truly high-risk offenders who could benefit from increased supervision and human service. Research has even suggested that offenders may actually be made worse by the imposition of higher levels of treatment and supervision than is warranted given their risk level. Rather than considering all sexual offenders as continuous, lifelong threats, society will be better served when legislation and policies consider the cost/benefit break point after which resources spent tracking and supervising low-risk sexual offenders are better re-directed toward the management of high-risk sexual offenders, crime prevention, and victim services.” [p.12]………………………………………………45, 46
Indiana Department of Correction Recidivism Rates Decrease for 3rd Consecutive Year. http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/IDOCRecidivism.pdf “1.05% of identified sex offender’s recidivated for a new sex crime within 3 years.”…………………………………………………43
Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009 http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation…………43
Iowa Sex Offender Research Council Report to the Iowa General Assembly January 22, 2009 http://publications.iowa.gov/15040/1/SOTF%201-15-09%20Final%20Report.pdf IA page 7 #4 “With the overall recidivism for sex offenses as low as 2%…………………………………………….43, 44
JILL S. LEVENSON, SEX OFFENDER RESIDENCE RESTRICTIONS: A REPORT TO THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE 2, Oct. 2005, https://ccoso.org/sites/default/files/residencerestrictionsFL.pdf, “There is emerging research suggesting that sex offender policies lead to serious unintended collateral consequences for offenders, such as limiting their opportunities for employment, housing, education, and prosocial support systems. As a result, current social policies may contribute to dynamic risk factors for offenders in the community, ultimately becoming counter-productive.”………………………..…3
Julia Tuttle Causeway, CNN, 2007; http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/05/bridge.sex.offenders/………………………………………………..3
Justice Policy Institute. http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf Registries and notification have not been proven to protect communities from sexual offenses, and may even distract from more effective approaches…….24
MI Table 3, Year 1980 0.4%, 1990-1.0%, 2000-0.5%.“Sex offenders have the lowest return rate for a new crime of any type”, “Contrary to popular assumptions, people paroled on a sex offenses rarely return to prison for another sex offense. Of more than 4,100 people paroled on a sex offense during the 39 months under review, only 32 – less than 1 percent — returned with a new criminal sexual assault (CSC) sentence. http://nationalrsol.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/CAPPS.pdf………………………………………………………………………………..43
National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=247350 The overall conclusion is that Megan’s Law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrests for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual re offending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual re-offense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses…………………………………………………………………………………………24
REPORT TO THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE OCTOBER 2005 By Jill S. Levenson, Ph.D. https://ccoso.org/sites/default/files/residencerestrictionsFL.pdf “There is emerging research suggesting that sex offender policies lead to serious unintended collateral consequences for offenders, such as limiting their opportunities for employment, housing, education, and prosocial support systems. As a result, current social policies may contribute to dynamic risk factors for offenders in the community, ultimately becoming counter-productive.”……………………..3, 25
THE IOWA SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY AND
RECIDIVISM Iowa Department of Human Rights Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning and Statistical Analysis Center. https://humanrights.iowa.gov/sites/default/files/media/SexOffenderReport%5B1%5D.pdf IA table 4 03% new sex crime………………………………………………………………………44
If you ask me that is a pretty impressive list, and I really do not see how the AG is going to try and refute any of it. The fact that the legislature has been giving all these reports but continue to add onerous laws is prima facie evidence of legislative inten i.e. impossible to say it is for public safety…..
Man this isn’t cool. When I cited this it was valid. What’s up can anyone cite the right link????????
MI Table 3, Year 1980 0.4%, 1990-1.0%, 2000-0.5%.“Sex offenders have the lowest return rate for a new crime of any type”, “Contrary to popular assumptions, people paroled on a sex offenses rarely return to prison for another sex offense. Of more than 4,100 people paroled on a sex offense during the 39 months under review, only 32 – less than 1 percent — returned with a new criminal sexual assault (CSC) sentence. http://nationalrsol.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/CAPPS.pdf
Hey, am I seeing reading this correctly? Did they amend the tiered bill? Wow it looks like they amended it 5 times since March 2027. Here is what it states and I don’t see 288.2 in tier three any more, in fact I don’t see it at all.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=288.2.&lawCode=PEN
(1) (A) A tier one offender is subject to registration for a minimum of 10 years. A person is a tier one offender if the person is required to register for conviction of a misdemeanor described in subdivision (c), or for conviction of a felony described in subdivision (c) that was not a serious or violent felony as described in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 or subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7.
(B) This paragraph does not apply to a person who is subject to registration pursuant to paragraph (2) or (3).
(2) (A) A tier two offender is subject to registration for a minimum of 20 years. A person is a tier two offender if the person was convicted of an offense described in subdivision (c) that is also described in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 or subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7, or that is a felony offense described in subdivision (a) or (d) of Section 243.4, Section 285, subdivision (f), (g), (h), or (i) of Section 286, subdivision (c) of Section 288, subdivision (f), (g), (h), or (i) of Section 288a, subdivision (b), (d), or (e) of Section 289, a felony violation of Section 311.1, a felony violation of Section 311.11, Section 647.6 if it is a second or subsequent conviction for that offense that was brought and tried separately, or subdivision (c) of Section 653f.
(B) This paragraph does not apply if the person is subject to lifetime registration as required in paragraph (3).
(3) A tier three offender is subject to registration for life. A person is a tier three offender if any one of the following applies:
(A) Following conviction of a registerable offense, the person was subsequently convicted in a separate proceeding of committing an offense described in subdivision (c) and the conviction is for commission of a violent felony described in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5, or the person was subsequently convicted of committing an offense for which the person was ordered to register pursuant to Section 290.006, and the conviction is for the commission of a violent felony described in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5.
(B) The person was committed to a state mental hospital as a sexually violent predator pursuant to Article 4 (commencing with Section 6600) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division 6 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
(C) The person was convicted of violating any of the following:
(i) Section 187 while attempting to commit or committing an act punishable under Section 261, 286, 288, 288a, or 289.
(ii) Section 207 or 209 with intent to violate Section 261, 286, 288, 288a, or 289.
(iii) Subdivision (b) of Section 220.
(iv) Section 269.
(v) Subdivision (b) of Section 288.
(vi) Section 288.7.
(vii) Any offense for which the person is sentenced to a life term pursuant to Section 667.61.
(D) The person’s risk level on the static risk assessment instrument for sex offenders (SARATSO), pursuant to Section 290.04, is well above average risk at the time of release on the index sex offense into the community, as defined in the Coding Rules for that instrument.
(E) The person is a habitual sex offender pursuant to Section 667.71.
(F) The person was convicted of violating subdivision (a) of Section 288 in two proceedings brought and tried separately.
(G) The person was sentenced to 15 to 25 years to life for an offense listed in Section 667.61.
(H) The person is required to register pursuant to Section 290.004.
(I) The person was convicted of a felony offense described in subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 236.1.
(J) The person was convicted of violating Section 261 and punished pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 264.
(K) The person was convicted of violating subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 286.
(L) The person was convicted of violating subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 288a.
(M) The person was convicted of violating subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 289.
(N) The person was convicted of violating subdivision (b), (c), or (d) of Section 311.2, Section 311.3, 311.4, or 311.10.
(4) (A) A person who is required to register pursuant to Section 290.005 shall be placed in the appropriate tier if the offense is assessed as equivalent to a California registerable offense described in subdivision (c).
It doesn’t state anything about 288(a) or 288.2 any more.
Today’s CATO Institute Presentation on the Sex Offender Registry –
Facebook link: https://www.facebook.com/CatoInstitute/videos/vb.26668999076/10155392997249077/?type=3&theater
Twitter link: https://twitter.com/CatoInstitute/status/961649092580532226
Here is the reply to my Opposition. It’s on my site.
http://mllkeys20112011.wixsite.com/mysite
I wonder if anyone is ever going to challenge AB 109 passed in 2011. Non violent felons have a chance at being treated like a human being if it’s a non-violent or non-sex-related crimes to be sentenced to county jail and/or non-custodial mandatory supervision, similar to probation. To me theres definitely a double standard here.
https://www.dailybulletin.com/2018/02/08/to-parole-or-not-to-parole-debate-sparked-after-panel-says-inland-killers-have-redeemed-themselves-should-be-freed/
How do you all do it and cope? I’ve been on this list for only a month and I’ve lost all hope of ever having a semblance of a life. Each day it just gets harder and harder and harder. I’m really at the point of just wanting to give up.
Random thought: I just discovered that “meganslaw.info” is an available domain from GoDaddy. A crafty RC with a penchant for mischief could buy it and use it for getting truth(s) out. I’m neither crafty nor mischievous enough.
All great advice AJ and Roger, You guys are absolutely right, when I got out of prison I was homeless (Jessica’s Law) I couldn’t see my teenage son, I was destitute, and the stress from living in homeless shelters and on the streets for awhile with an ankle monitor so everyone around you knows whats up, I was almost (almost) to the point to where I was seriously considering suicide. I fought thru it though man just like all the proud Americans from our past did with their fights. We are Americans and we have grit, determination, and are inherently patriotic (at least I still am, I just hate politicians and corrupt judges or DAs) and we fight when we get hit. Stay strong and proud my friend and DO NOT let theses bastard*(^& win. Things are changing and the pendulum is swinging.
Oh, how my body is moved to perform the Happy Dance when lawmakers are exposed as hypocrital, especially when it involves allegations of sexual misconduct, and especially when it’s in this political shithole, California.
Tee hee hee…
#MeToo movement lawmaker investigated for sexual misconduct allegations
California legislator cut national profile as activist against sexual harassment.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/08/cristina-garcia-california-metoo-398985
Will the loony left circle the wagons around her, or coerce her to perform seppuku along with Franken and the others?
Popcorn, anyone?
From what I remember, it was never explicitly stated. It fell into the group of violent felonies, and one had to go there to find it. I am not sure why they hid it that way, but assume it would draw cries from victims groups to put it in tier 3 if it draws attention to itself. The slang term for someone who commits “lewd acts” is child molester, and that is who the public wants to see burned with lifetime registration, but it also is the offense with the most people on the registry. They couldn’t reduce the registry size much if they put all 288’s in tier 3. That’s my theory.
No I do not have a link to the original version but I am ABSOLUTELY positive it stated 288(a) in the tier two section and I am ABSOLUTELY positive it stated 288.2 as a tier three. There is no doubt, I read and read and re-read that version countless times and am ABSOLUTELY positive. Now there is NO mention of a single offense 288(a) or 288.2.
Also.
2.2% recidivism rates in 1997 according to the CA AGs own report that was submitted to the legislature. Far cry from “frightening and high” 80%. It sure seems like Janice or someone could petition the court demanding that the solicitor General and the legislature show cause why they either purposely or inadvertently were misleading the highest court in the country about recidivism rates (they were either grossly incompetent or purposely unethical, one or the other) and continued to rely on that false declaration knowing it to be false. I believe that is borderline criminal, if not actually criminal.
I am going to pound home this issue right out of the gate at the hearing.
Contrary to what Defendant claims, recidivism rates are an extremely relevant issue in this case. Challenges to the registration requirement, and the consequences that flow from it, are
usually turned back by courts and politicians who often quote Justice Kennedy’s dramatic language describing the recidivism rate for sex offenders as “frightening and high.” A Lexis search of legal materials found that phrase in 91 judicial opinions, as well as briefs in 101 cases. Complaint pp 42 at 10-12.
Its endorsement has transformed random opinions by self-interested non-experts into definitive studies offered to justify law and policy, while real studies by real scientists go unnoticed.
I would think that the court would be seriously upset by the fact that the attorneys for the government not only misrepresented the facts about recidivism rates to the court in McKune using unconfirmed statistics, but they continue to feed the court the false assumptions and misrepresenting or ignoring the actual facts of the low recidivism rates in just about every case brought on sex offender laws, even though they (the government attorneys and legislators) know that those assumptions have been thoroughly debunked. Thus, any assertion in this case or future cases by the government or the legislature concerning facts about sex offender recidivism rates, or dangerousness, should be suspect and should be thoroughly fact checked by the courts.
The actual recidivism rates in 1997 were 2.2% according to the CA AGs’ own report that was submitted to the legislature. Far cry from “frightening and high” 80%. It sure seems like the court should be demanding that the solicitor General and the legislature show cause why they either purposely, or inadvertently, were misleading the highest court in the country about recidivism rates (they were either grossly incompetent or purposely unethical, one or the other) and continued to rely on that false declaration knowing it to be false. I believe that is borderline criminal, if not actually criminal.
Revision.
“I believe that is borderline criminal, if not actually criminal (most definitely it is grounds for disbarment, or at the very least severe disciplinary actions by either the court, ethics committee, or the state bar association)”
They are being hush hush on that warrant involving a cop shooting in Georgia:
https://nypost.com/2018/02/09/cop-expecting-new-baby-any-day-gunned-down-serving-warrant/
Who wants to bet it was a CP investigation or a failure to register?
“The sheriff said that “after about 10 minutes of talking with him (they) realized they were going to be making an arrest, and they were going to have issues placing him in custody.” At that point they called Locust Grove for backup from an officer.”
“He said they had no reason to believe when they arrived that the suspect would be violent.”
“Walton County Hosts Mock Child Abduction.” This is from Florida’s Panhandle. Let’s openly mock it. http://www.mypanhandle.com/news/walton-county-hosts-mock-child-abduction/963813141
@AJ
Doe v Stein hearing in NC 6Feb18 has been rescheduled.
NOTICE of Rescheduling Hearing: Oral Argument Hearing, Re:12 reset for 3/13/2018 at 09:30 AM in Winston-Salem Courtroom #1 before JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS.
(SOURCE: NARSOL website)
Hi everyone,
I have a question and I’m looking for your thoughts. I am currently on parole. I signed a plea deal which specifically indicates I would do no more than 4 years of parole. When I was released I was told I would be doing a minimum of 5 years of parole, and recently I was told that due to some changes in the law, I will now be doing 10 years of parole. I live in Kern County and I am not the only one this has been done to. I have contacted an attorney through Root and Rebound who is looking into my case, she told me that they have heard this story countless times now and that most of those affected live either in Kern County or Riverside County. When I approached the parole supervisor here in Kern I was told that my time had been changed in Sacramento and he has no control over it. If that is the case, why are the majority of these parole issues emanating from two specific counties? Wouldn’t a change in law effect all parolees in California? I’m wondering what Kern County and Riverside County hold in common, are they possibly supervised by the same person on some higher level?
Here’s an interesting (and fairly easy) read from a 2011 issue of “Criminal Justice” (an ABA publication) that addresses RC laws and posits they are punitive: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/criminal_justice_magazine/cjsp11_populism.pdf. There’s a bit of irony that the author is a professor at a Florida law school.
Reading this article, it really makes me wonder how many attorneys and judges out there think SCOTUS royally screwed up in Smith. Hopefully enough of them to help us more, and hopefully some of them get installed into key positions. (I vaguely recall a female judge from the 6th Circuit being on Trump’s short list as a possible SCOTUS nominee if/when a vacancy occurs. That would serve us well, I think.)
I find it really hard to believe that a parole or department of corrections can up your parole. That is straight adding punishment. Plus I do not think many know, but I believe that unless the judge specifically extends your actual sentence then your stop parole date is when you max out on your sentence, not when anyone else states. The reason I say this is because fro some reason after I went for re sentencing and the court determined I was to get half time they also set my release date, so when I was on parole I think the parole board was scared to go past that date even with parole since they stopped my parole six months early and it just happened to be my maxed out date. Kind of a coincidence, which I don’t believe CDC would have let me off early without a reason. Someone who is effected by this should delve into it a little more because it could me very little to no parole. Just like when people stay in and max out they do not have parole. I know they all say no way for sex offenders but they all said I wasn’t getting half time for more than a year and a half while I was locked up.