Webster’s definition of Schadenfreude is, “Joy at the misery of others.” In 1997 in Haifa a seaside city in Israel, an old Jewish man told me that it was Hitler’s favorite word. I’ve often wondered how a German word made it into an English dictionary. Whatever its origin, it’s the word that immediately sprang to mind when I heard a few of my fellow felons discussing my friend Michael R. Harris’ Parole Board appearance.
Harris was denied parole for the third time on September 25th. The inmates I heard discussing, Michael’s case made cavalier remarks about how having a lawyer and money doesn’t guarantee your release. Astonishingly, they were laughing about it. Bad news seems to travel fast at San Quentin. Maybe it’s no different than any other microcosm of society. However this was devastating
news to me.
Michael was denied because the board determined that he failed to demonstrate insight into his crime. One should acknowledge that they understand the consequences of their actions. But what if for 21 years you have maintained your innocence?
What if the alleged victim shows up at your hearing and declares: “He didn’t do it,” is it possible to show remorse or insight into something you didn’t do? If you did claim remorse wouldn’t it appear disingenuous?
I don’t know whether Mike did or didn’t commit the crime of which he was convicted. I’ve never asked him. It’s not the sort of thing you ask other inmates. But these circumstances apply: a) he claims he didn’t do it and b) the victim appeared at his parole hearing and confirmed his innocence. Does the Parole Board have a fiduciary responsibility to ascertain that an inmate is qualified to return to society? Should they be bound to using reasonable and secular criteria to determine this? The answer, of course, is a resounding ‘yes’ on both counts. The board knows you were found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Not beyond all doubt, only the victim or the defendant knows that. Therefore, asking one to express insight into a crime you claim you didn’t commit as a condition of parole is in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
There is plenty of other criteria to ascertain ones suitability for parole such as employment, housing, disciplinary record, self-help programs completed, family support, education etc. There is no worldly way to determine whether one would recidivate.
Recently I had a discussion with two long-tenured CDCR (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) employees whom I respect. They told me that as correctional professionals one develops a sixth sense about inmates, and can spot a recidivist a mile away. Now I don’t know whether I believe this or not, but I do believe that they believe it. My point is that if the Parole Board is made up of individuals of similar backgrounds, it is apparent that such non-secular techniques are being used. Was it not Shakespeare that once said that no decision is void of self political interest?
I can say without bias that Michael Harris is suitable for parole. His parole plans by the board’s own admissions are impeccable. Of the almost 5,000 parole hearings held in 2007, approximately 80 inmates were released, and most of those were court-ordered. Now either CDCR is doing a lousy job of the “R” in their acronym, or inmates aren’t the only ones guilty of Schadenfreude.