Greg and I can invariably on opposite sides of issues, but on this one I think we're of one mind. The words "miscarriage of justice" come to mind:
Dorothy Dixon said Thursday she and her husband, Andrew, were to be notified when their son's killers came up for parole review. Instead, Dixon was shocked to learn Thursday that Donald Riley's parole was approved last month, without any input from the Dixon family.
Marine Lance Cpl. Tarron Dixon had been home from his five years in the Marine Corps only two days when he was shot to death within view of his parents' southeast Houston home June 6, 1991.
Riley, 19 at the time of the shooting, had three drug-related convictions and was on parole when he and other Brazoria County teens came to Houston to, as Riley told police in 1991, "(expletive) with some niggers."
Given that Riley was already a three-time loser, could not a reasonable person assume that he would be put away for a good long time? I understand that time sentenced hardly corresponds to time served, and there are times when early release might be a good thing. I can't begin to fathom how one could argue that paroling Riley early is anything close to being a good thing.
But the Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed the deadly weapon finding that was part of Riley's conviction, meaning he had to serve only a quarter of his sentence — life sentences are called 60 years for parole purposes — before becoming eligible.
A quarter would have been 15 years, and Riley has served 13. "Good time," credit for good behavior in prison, made up the extra two years.
Riley's parole was approved by a 2-to-1 vote June 23. Texas Board of Pardons and Parole members Lynn Ruzicka and Charles Speier voting for parole; Linda Garcia opposed.
I would be curious to hear what the rationale was for dismissing the "deadly weapon" charge against Riley. Now, I'm not an attorney, nor am I in possession of a learned legal mind, but does not shooting someone to death ipso facto translate to being in possession of a deadly weapon? Granted, I'm just a lowly History major, but if someone can explain this to me in terms that I can understand, I'm all ears. And try not to use a lot of $50 words- I can be a little bit slow sometimes.
If the role of our criminal justice system is to protect us from those who cannot peacefully coexist with others, then that system has failed us in this instance. At the very least, it has failed Tarron Dixon's family, who deserved better than finding out about the parole of their son's killer after the fact.
As much as I hate to inject the issue of raise into this scenario, it's a question that needs to be asked. If Dixon had been from a wealthy white family, do you really think that this travesty of justice would have been played out on his family? There is no way to be certain of the answer, of course, but I have a feeling the answer would be a resounding "Hell, no!"
This is a case where Texas' criminal justice system has clearly and egregiously failed the family of a victim. Given that the Parole Board is a virtually autonomous panel, should we be surprised that they whiffed on this one? After all, who's going to call them on the carpet?
