The COVID-19 pandemic has created havoc and confusion in the lives of many of us. We have struggled individually, and as a community, to stay well and to recover from this illness. We have experienced a sense of loss of privileges, and we have faced hardships as we live and work in a much different way than even a year ago.
In response to the pandemic, legislation - House Bill 37 - has been introduced that would permit the early release of about 800 Delaware inmates prior to the completion of their sentences. As you can imagine, this legislation has resulted in countless questions as to, in a practical sense, who will be eligible for early release and how the public’s safety will be ensured.
While other states have used executive action for the early release of inmates during the COVID-19 crisis, they have also set certain criteria for considering when to permit an early release, mainly allowing it for only non-violent offenders.
Many states that have permitted early release in response to COVID-19 required the release of those inmates with less than 180 days to serve on their sentence. As currently written, House Bill 37 has no such safeguards in place that would ensure the release of only non-violent offenders who are within a certain time period for parole eligibility.
While incarcerated, an inmate has the ability to earn “good time” credits for completing milestones in their rehabilitation and for conducting themselves with good behavior. Under House Bill 37, inmates could receive a “public health emergency credit” that would automatically be awarded when a public health emergency is declared. To award “good time” simply for being incarcerated during COVID-19 diminishes the achievement of earned good behavior.
When any crime is committed and a sentence is imposed, there is a consequence. More importantly, there is a victim. The victim may be an individual or a community at large that has been harmed. Sadly, I was recently asked to address a situation where a victim was denied adequate notification of a parole hearing for the potential release of a violent offender. An automated phone message notified her that the convicted murderer in this particular case was being released that day. If the current system cannot ensure that procedures and policies are maintained for the few inmates currently being paroled, how can it accommodate the 800+ who could be permitted early release under House Bill 37?
As a legislator, I strive to protect and serve, as well as to be a guardian. In an attempt to represent the public’s concerns with this bill and as a member of the House Corrections Committee, I participated in the recent committee hearing on the legislation. The amount of questions and misinformation that resulted has given me great pause as we possibly move forward with this bill. I understand that, thankfully, we can expect amendments addressing some of the concerns raised during that hearing. However, our first and foremost priority must be twofold. First, we must ensure that the flaws in the current system for releasing inmates are fixed. And, second, providing justice for the victim and ensuring the public’s safety must never be compromised.
Ruth Briggs King
state representative
37th District
-
A letter to the editor expresses a reader's opinion and, as such, is not reflective of the editorial opinions of this newspaper.
To submit a letter to the editor for publishing, send an email to newsroom@capegazette.com. Letters must be signed and include a telephone number and address for verification. Please keep letters to 500 words or fewer. We reserve the right to edit for content and length. Letters should be responsive to issues addressed in the Cape Gazette rather than content from other publications or media. Only one letter per author will be published every 30 days. Letters restating information and opinions already offered by the same author will not be used. Letters must focus on issues of general, local concern, not personalities or specific businesses.
