Society’s gatekeepers

Kim Smith

Sunday, June 18, 2000 | 10:32 a.m.

He looks just like many men rapidly approaching middle age.

He's going a little soft around the middle, losing more than a little on top and if his glasses are any indication, he can't see as well as he once did.

But, on this day he's made an effort to look his best. His high-top tennis shoes are as white as can be, his denim shirt is starched and his blue jeans belted.

Gale Fox, 38, has to be at his best this day. This is the day he has to convince the Nevada Board of Parole that despite the fact he beat, raped and sodomized a disabled woman repeatedly over an eight-hour period 16 years ago, he deserves to be set free.

Five years ago, as long as he had kept his nose clean in prison, Fox would have had a much better shot at going home. But parole board appearances in Nevada took a radical turn in 1995 after a recently paroled inmate killed a cop.

The killing sparked a statewide outcry about how easy it was for even violent offenders to serve a set amount of their sentence and then walk right back into society.

Today's parole board candidates face much tougher scrutiny and harsher penalties based on a set of guidelines revised after the 1995 slaying. They still have to serve a prescribed portion of their sentence, but parole board members, victims, police agencies, district attorneys and a host of other factors are likely to more heavily influence whether an inmate goes free.

Fox was just one of 21 inmates that commissioners Donald Denison, Michael Harris and Bob Seiler met with Monday in a tiny room at the Southern Desert Correctional Center in Indian Springs.

The parole board is made up of seven members, each appointed by the governor for four-year terms. Currently four members reside in Las Vegas and the others are in Reno.

Parole decisions for inmates convicted of serious crimes must be agreed upon by a majority of the board.

After Fox's hearing, the three members forwarded their individual recommendations and Fox's file to the fourth Las Vegas member, Tami Bass.

If all four agree on a decision, they will have a majority. If not, his file will be sent to the Reno members until a majority is reached. In any event, Fox will learn his fate this week via mail, and the decision will become public record.

If his parole was denied, he will appear before the board again sometime in the next three years. The board cannot deny parole for more than three years at a time.

Although parole is rarely granted on an inmate's first hearing, about 50 percent of inmates receive it on subsequent visits, Denison said. All must have served at least 40 percent of their sentence.

Fox will be one of 600 inmates seen by board members this month alone, and he'll be one of the last ones seen by Chairman Denison, who is retiring July 7.

System overhauled

Denison, a 20-year Metro Police veteran and retired undersheriff, was appointed to the board to help overhaul a troubled system. Now, five years later and on the eve of his retirement, it appears unanimous -- the system is working.

Denison's appointment came on the heels of the 1995 scandal.

On May 22, 1995, Donald Cameron robbed two stores, and shot and killed Sparks Police Officer Larry Johnson. Cameron was killed after being shot 20 times by Johnson's fellow officers.

It was quickly revealed that not only had Cameron been paroled in April 1995, but he was wanted for violating his parole by committing forgery.

A Las Vegas Sun investigation at the time showed parole officers missed several opportunities to pick up Cameron, including the night before Johnson's murder. A supervisor declined to approve overtime that night.

In response, Nevada lawmakers, tired of watching criminals walk after serving small portions of their sentences, adopted Truth in Sentencing laws during the next legislative session. The state also increased the number of parole board members to seven from six.

Denison, with input from other board members, rewrote large portions of the guidelines used to decide if parole should be granted. The guidelines ranked crimes according to their severity, streamlined a point system and began penalizing defendants not only for past crimes, but for crimes committed at the same time as the one for which they were up for parole.

"The bottom line is that with Truth in Sentencing and with what the parole board now does, violent offenders are spending more time behind bars than what they were before 1995," Denison said.

Other states boast that prisoners serve 85 percent of their sentences, but they have shorter sentences, Denison said. In Nevada, prisoners serve at least 40 percent of their sentences, but their sentences are longer.

"Eighty-five percent of a small number is much smaller than 40 or 50 percent of a big number," Denison said.

Serving time

Thanks to the new sentencing laws, murderers are no longer eligible for parole after three years, Denison said. Depending upon when they were convicted, they now have to serve from five to 20 years before they are eligible.

Felony drunken drivers must now serve at least one year in prison before being eligible for parole, Denison said. Prior to 1995, they were eligible for parole after three months and likely to walk after nine months.

"I hope it will stay like it is for 10, 15, 20 years. I think it's right the way it is now," Denison said. "The best example of that is that five years ago, people despised the board and those same people are our biggest advocates now. I'm talking about victims' advocates, district attorneys and Metro's repeat offender program.

"I will probably die believing my greatest contribution to society is revising these standards," Denison said. "I think they've done more for Nevada society than anything I did in my 20 years in law enforcement."

While judges and jurors in first-degree murder cases will assess a sentence -- for example, life in prison with parole eligibility after 20 years -- it is up to the parole board to determine when the inmate will actually be released.

To assist in that, board members developed a potential release date based on a formula that takes into consideration such things as the severity of the crime or crimes an inmate committed, past convictions, number of arrests, judges' orders, substance abuse issues, the use of a weapon, employment records and education levels.

They also look at such things as an inmate's disciplinary record in prison, educational courses and counseling they've received and any work assignments they've completed.

There are other things board members look at and those intangibles, such as input from police, prosecutors, victims and family members, often prompt members to depart from the recommended release date, Denison said. The board can release earlier or it can release later.

In Fox's case, the board paroled him in 1990 on a 15-year robbery charge so he could start serving a five-year to life sentence in the sexual assault case.

The board, using its guidelines, determined Fox should serve between 12.5 and 15 years for the rape and up to Monday's hearing, no member had opted to release him earlier.

"I'm sure there are some liberal people who think that we're too hard now, but on the flip side, there are probably many, many people who believe no one should ever be paroled," Denison said.

Board disliked

Howard Abadinsky, an instructor at St. Xavier University in Chicago and a former New York parole officer, recently completed the seventh edition of his book, "Probation and Parole, Theory and Practice."

Abadinsky believes people hate parole boards becomes they don't understand that eventually almost everyone gets released from prison.

"It's hard to defend parole politically," Abadinsky said. "If I could spend 30 minutes explaining the parole system, I'm sure I could convince any reasonable-minded person that the parole system is the superior system."

There are 14 states that don't have parole boards, and in each prisoners are released based on their behavior while behind bars, Abadinsky said.

"But the problem is that behavior in prison is a bad predictor of recidivism. There are certain types of inmates that typically behave well in prison, but they don't do well once they're released." Abadinsky said. "Drug offenders come to mind for the obvious reason: They can't get drugs in prison."

Michigan and Florida don't have parole boards and in the 1980s suffered the consequences, Abadinsky said.

At one point, for every prisoner booked into prison, one was released, Abadinsky said. The person released wasn't selected based on any of the factors a board looks at; instead, he was released because he was the closest to finishing his sentence.

In Florida, inmates were being released 500 at a time, again not because they were deemed rehabilitated, but because they were close to completing their minimum sentence. "Florida is a good example of what happens when you get rid of a board," Abadinsky said. "They just increased the amount of good time credits they got and they ended up getting released way before a parole board would have released them."

The parole board has the unenviable job of trying to determine which inmates have truly found God, which ones really have jobs waiting for them and which ones will say anything to get back out on the streets, Clark County District Attorney Stewart Bell said.

Members get blamed not only when the wool is pulled over their eyes, but when a well-intentioned parolee slips into a life of crime after losing a job, Bell said.

"Overall, they have a tough job and overall, they do a good job," Bell said.

Changes within the district attorney's office have had an effect on the parole board also, Bell said.

"We've been more effective in the past few years," Bell said. "We write letters and make personal appearances before the board to ensure that the most dangerous defendants are not released."

Cases watched

Brian Rutledge, chief deputy district attorney, is one of a handful of prosecutors who write the 30 or so letters that go out every month.

The attorneys look over a list of those coming up for parole, select certain cases, pull their files and then write letters explaining why they are opposed to parole.

Those who merit opposition letters generally fall into two categories: habitual offenders and "those who are such a danger to society that you can't afford to have them on the streets," Rutledge said.

Barbara Schell, victim witness program administrator for the district attorney's office, is another proponent of the parole board.

"Years ago there was no concern for the victims," Schell said. "They were more focused on meeting the needs of the inmates. But now they realized that the inmate has a right to a parole hearing, but so does the victim and the public."

Denis illustrated that concern for victims on Monday when Fox, the convicted rapist, made his appeal.

After Fox described his version of events and how he has since learned and overcome what caused his actions that day, Denison quoted from a letter the victim wrote the parole board before she died.

The 53-year-old victim, who suffered from lupus and multiple sclerosis, described the horror Fox put her through.

Fox said he knows that no matter how much time he serves it will never "balance the scales."

"I'm one of the real bad ones," Fox said, while still insisting he has learned to control his behavior.

"I went into that house a time bomb and I exploded, I erupted and there's no excuse for it," Fox said. "I didn't go to her house intending to do what I did, it could have happened two days before the, two weeks after or two months after."

Although his case had yet to go to a fourth board member, Denison gave Fox a hint as to what the board's decision was going to be.

"You could explode two weeks from now, and that's what scares me," Denison said. "Unfortunately for you, I'm retiring in three weeks. You would have been better off if I had retired three weeks ago instead of three weeks from now."

Fox assured the board that regardless of its decision he is going to keep doing what is expected of him.

"Well, good luck," Denison said as Fox walked out. "And have as good a day as you can."