I'm starting to hate you. And I'm not surprised you messed up.
I'm actually surprised it isn't much worse, and that no one, that we know of, has died.
For two years, my now ex-husband, Sgt. Karl Miller, worked in your lab. I refused to bring our children to Dugway because I know what you do there. Although I see the necessity of these kinds of tests, I don't have to be a party to them.
For the two years he worked at Dugway, Karl had a raging addiction to prescription painkillers. I only found this out during our divorce, when I combed through his medical records to try to find an answer as to why my family is in ruins. While he was working at Dugway, he admitted to me that he and his friend were not only using oxy as prescribed, but also crushing and snorting them. They were also drinking heavily. This combination led to the DUI he got sometime in September 2013.
Karl and I met in college in 1992, in a Russian class. He was a super nerd; besides having Coke-bottle bottom eyeglasses, Brillo pad hair and terrible sense of fashion that daily included a khaki trench coat and dusty blue silk button-up shirt, he had a little Bart Simpson keychain hanging from his backpack. I'm not sure that I was any better, but I definitely felt superior at the time.
For several weeks, I avoided talking to him as much as possible. Unfortunately, he always made me laugh and after giving in and agreeing to go to the student union for dinner a couple of times, we became fast friends. Soon after, we became inseparable, even though I had a boyfriend and was not at all attracted to him.
He was really smart in a pointless way. His major was medieval English; he lived, breathed and ate Chaucer, Donne and Richardson. Most of his time was spent reading books he didn't especially enjoy and writing poetry for a beautiful redheaded girl in our Russian class named Jennifer.
Jennifer was unbelievably far out of Karl's reach, but he made a truly valiant effort, preparing an entire book of lofty hand-written love poems for her, only to be firmly rebuffed on the very day he presented it to her. I knew it was going to go badly, but offered encouraging words in spite of knowing she would never be interested in him.
I studied Russian for three semesters; finally there was a study abroad program to Moscow. Everything that could have gone wrong before the trip, did. The Russian embassy even lost my passport and the director of the program had to go to the airport and find it in the mail room. Karl came to see me the day before I left and I remember him standing out in front of the store I worked at (I wouldn't invite him to my house), hopefully gazing at me while opening his arms in anticipation of a hug. And I was too embarrassed to give him one in front of my posh and attractive co-workers. I said it was because my boyfriend was standing there with me, but it was plain old embarrassment that refused the hug from a man who had become my closest confidante.
This friendship went on for several years, through many boyfriends. Karl tried to have relationships with other girls, but it always seemed like the women he chose were out of his reach. It wasn't so much the way he looked, but the way he acted. His humor couldn't overcome this nagging sense of him being just a little too insecure and a little too immature.
During my second trip to Moscow, my cute English friend taught me how to make Jello shots, so I could get wasted without having to taste the alcohol. Karl asked me to make some so he could have it before class; he liked to suck down two batches in the 15 minutes before English. I was never drunk at school. He and I would also go out to the Little Russian Cafe on Larimer; he would suck down shot after shot of vodka and I would eat borsch. I needed to feed my Russian addiction. He needed to get drunk before getting on the bus to go home.
Eventually, I moved to Russia to study and then stayed on to work. Karl and I were still in close contact and I still loved talking to him. My boyfriend at the time was abusive and so it was hard to talk to Karl outside of work; contact with any other men drove Sergei into fits of insane jealousy. At some point, Karl was in a relationship with a girl at the University of Wisconsin and moved out there. But at some point that also went horribly wrong, so he left her, came home and joined the army.
I think that my stepdad was the most amazed by this choice; I don't think there could be a man less destined to join the military than Karl. This was, after all, the guy who found Shakespeare relatable on a personal level.
But I thought it changed him for the better, and so when my first marriage deteriorated, he was quick to nominate himself as my new love interest.
My Rational Mind Knows That Alcoholism Is a Disease
Okay, I'll just say it: I hate addiction. I get that it's a disease and addicts need to go into treatment and all that, but I really hate addiction. You're probably not a bad person, and as long as you feel embarrassed about your addiction, I can at least have some kind of relationship with you despite you being strung out on ... whatever. But I won't ever entirely respect you. Or trust you.
If you want to get all angry about it, blame my grandma. She was very beautiful and very talented and very kind. I loved her dearly. But when my grandfather got sick with Alzheimer's, that's when everything went back to "normal."
A short while before I was born, my grandma stopped drinking. Her alcoholism had weighed heavily on the entire family for many, many years; nothing could stop the drinking that so affected everyone's life. When she was young, she had been a social drinker, but as her life progressed, her need to escape became more desperate and all-encompassing.
Always the wild child, when she was young she started drinking at parties and get-togethers. But as she got older, my grandma probably found herself increasingly unable to cope with the numerous bastard children my grandfather is rumored to have fathered or the non-stop bullying of her special needs son not only by fellow students but teachers as well. Maybe it was because she was trapped on a rural Iowa farm and her fiercely creative spirit was smothered by my curmudgeon of a great-grandfather, someone so cheap and so stubborn, he let his 40-something year old wife die of a burst appendix because he didn't want to pay for the ambulance ride to Omaha, or the subsequent hospitalization, until it was too late to save her.
Regardless, my grandmother became a raging alcoholic. My grandfather (who was far from perfect himself) would drive to the bar in town and buy cases of beer, my grandmother's poison of choice, through the back door. In a way, having a lot of money probably made the situation worse, because she could hold on to the delusion that no one knew about her drinking. But ... no. Everyone knew.
My grandmother's drinking greatly affected my mother. My mom was freakishly tall for a girl in the 1950s, so was an obvious choice for the girl's basketball team. Their team went on to compete in the State Championships every year. I think they were an escape for her; but she dreaded home games. Her mother showed up drunk to almost every game, thinking no one could smell the alcohol on her breath. Of course, she was wrong.
So she was sent to rehab several times, with no luck. I say "rehab," because saying that what she went through was "treatment" isn't entirely accurate, and again, she probably wouldn't have gone through this if they didn't have so much money. They "treated" her by: putting her in a medically-induced coma, giving her electro-shock therapy, putting her in straight jackets in padded rooms (she learned how to get out of both the jackets and the restraints), and putting her in mirrored rooms with a table full of alcohol in the middle (presumably so she could shame herself into quitting), and SURPRISE!! None of them "cured" her alcoholism.
But for some reason, the news of my birth caused her to get clean and stay clean until she folded under the immense stress dealt to her in the early 1980s.
I Hated My Grandmother's Addiction
My grandma always thought she could fool people into thinking she was sober.
When I was a little girl, my grandmother was perfect. So when I saw her the first time as a sloppy drunk, it broke my heart. I don't really blame her for falling off that proverbial wagon, but I remember feeling disgust at her behavior.
My grandfather had early-onset Alzheimer's in the late 1970s. By the 1980s, he had to be in a home. My grandma avoided this decision for a really long time, but the day he stopped on the train tracks on the way into town, forgetting why he was in the car or how to make the car go or even what a car is, she knew the situation was only going to get worse and he would probably end up hurting himself or her.
After she put him in the local home, she had to sell the farm she had lived on for so long and move into town. This should have been a positive experience; my mom said she had wanted to move into town for decades. Unfortunately, the move into town was interrupted by daily trips to the home to spend time with my ailing grandfather. He had been a very tall, charming, handsome man his entire life and now, in addition to not recognizing even my grandmother, had to be tied to a chair because he assaulted a nurse.
So she couldn't help thinking about drinking. Shortly after he died, her sister died. They had been very close, so the loss was devastating. It was too much for her sober self to handle, and her alcoholism triumphed yet again.
That was when I lost my grandmother. We lived a couple of states away, so I didn't see her very often, which was a good thing. She still didn't think anyone could tell when she was drinking.
We would go to visit on school holidays. In the middle of the night, she would often be completely wasted and stand in front of the mirror in the bathroom, telling herself awful stories from her childhood, playing each part in the melodrama, voicing each character in different voices.
One of her favorite stories was the time when her sister, Evelyn, wouldn't do something for her. So she took their mother's best dress and held it over the outhouse pit, threatening to drop it in if Evelyn didn't do exactly what she wanted. This must have happened 60 years ago, but in her drunken state, my grandmother remembered each detail like it was yesterday. This story seemed pretty evil, so I didn't much like hearing it over and over.
Because we lived so far away, my grandmother's alcoholism didn't affect me that much. It did, however, greatly upset my mother, and I don't think she was able to forgive my grandmother for drinking again. As I get older, I see that her drinking had a profound affect on my mother's mental health. So even though I'm not mad at my grandma, I do wish she had been able to overcome the alcoholism so my mom (and in turn, I) might have had a more normal life.
I Thought I Knew The Man I Was Marrying
I thought the army changed Karl for the better. Like I said, the only person more shocked at his joining the army was my stepfather, and that's because he had been in the army. Karl had become much stronger and seemed full of the confidence that had always eluded him in college. He was my friend, only better.
My first marriage was falling apart and Karl was there to jump in to claim me. And he was my best friend! How could I ask for a better husband?
Yeah, well, I should have asked.
Being married to him was pretty awful right from the beginning. He changed very quickly into his dark, mean self that I had never met before. He was ruthlessly verbally and emotionally abusive to me and my daughter, Elisabeth. I should have left him right away, but I was trapped with no money, two sick kids and I was pregnant.
Finally, after 11 years of marriage, his drug addiction was the last straw (in a very large pile of straws) and I kicked him out.
I stayed with him for a long time. We only moved one time with the military, but we moved to Fort Hood. It has a reputation of being one of the worst posts in the army, and it didn't disappoint. It is isolated, the weather is pretty miserable and the crime rate, which the army does a good job at keeping out of the news, was the worst in Texas. We were sent there because Karl was unable to choose a duty station out of the ten duty stations they offered us. I begged him to make a choice; but he took so long to decide that the army decided for us. We were there for the shooting and a couple of weeks later, my husband was deployed to Balad, Iraq. I took my kids up to Colorado Springs to be with my mom.
I knew he wasn't in very much danger, so instead of obsessing over his safety, like many military wives have to do when their husbands are deployed, I was looking forward to being away from him. But even though he was physically gone, he didn't go away. He had access to phones and internet 24/7, and his anxiety was through the roof. Instead of having a break, I had to speak with him directly for several hours a day or he would accuse me of all sorts of things. I was utterly miserable.
When he returned home, I refused to go back to Fort Hood. We went and visited him the week he got back, but then returned to Colorado Springs. It was around that time that he became addicted to oxycodone.
He always had issues - BIG issues - with smoking and snuff, but I never thought he could be a full-on addict. I think it began as an actual physical problem (he has minor neck and nerve issues), but it's more likely that his anxiety got the best of him and his near Obi-Wan ability to get people to do what he wanted allowed him to manipulate doctors into giving him an unbelievable amount of drugs every month. It started off at a pretty normal amount, but then ballooned into 210-pill-per-month habit.
Addicts Care About One Thing
In October 2013, he got a DUI. I was disappointed and angry but mostly really surprised. He was stationed without us at the Dugway Proving Grounds; I refused to take our kids to a place where they perform nuclear, biological and chemical weapons testing. I was mostly surprised because he lived within a very short walking distance of everything on post and I wondered why he had been driving at all. I had no idea he was having any issue with drugs or alcohol. He confided that he was lucky that they only did a Breathalizer on him because he would have gone to jail for sure if they'd done the blood test.
He was so proud of himself for only getting probation for the offense. Frankly, I was amazed he wasn't in jail; this all happened at 11 a.m. and the reason he got caught is because he almost hit an MP car head-on. I was utterly disgusted by the whole thing.
Soon after, he came home and he was even more different. He didn't "get" me any more. He would fall asleep while I was talking to him. Not while I was talking and he was listening, but while he was talking, in the middle of a sentence, in the middle of the day. Would just trail off and start snoring.
I found out later that it was a complete lie, but he started telling us that he was being recruited by the FBI. He didn't say what he would be doing for the FBI, but it was something. He was taking huge amounts of prescription painkillers at the time. My friend kept saying I should call the doctor and have them do a pill count, but I didn't want to jeopardize his job with the FBI! She kept telling me that no one with a DUI was going to get a job with the FBI, but I thought that maybe my husband's skills were a a level at which they would be willing to overlook one indiscretion.
But the drugs were too much for me. It wasn't even that I was utterly disappointed in him for having an obvious addiction (which, just like my grandma, he was sure no one knew about). It was that I had no control whatsoever over his addiction. At one point, I made him give me the bottles of pills so I could dole them out responsibly, as prescribed. But he would find them and partake liberally.
There was a part of me that was a little jealous. I have a really bad back, and I'm lucky to get 10 pills and a prescription for physical therapy. When my back goes out, I literally have to stop drinking anything because it hurts too bad to crawl to the bathroom to pee. And yet here he was, getting 210 prescription painkillers per month, and the doctors at the VA even offered to give him more!
In April, he took all the pills and switched them out for Tylenols, which look the same except for the imprint. And he was sneaky: he kept coming to me and asking for the pills, knowing full well that they weren't his oxycodone tablets.
By June, he was up to about 12-14 pills per day. The most disturbing part is that I don't remember him acting any worse; looking back, however, there was the day he insisted on driving (which he never did our whole marriage if we were going someplace together) and was driving about 20 miles under the speed limit on the interstate in the fast lane. I made him pull over immediately and accused him of being stoned out of his mind. Of course, he denied it completely.
His behavior became increasingly bizarre over the coming months. When it became clear that a paycheck for the imaginary job was never coming and his addiction would never get any better, I kicked him out. At first, he made promises to go into rehab and see a therapist. Of course, those were all smoke screens to prolong the free pills coming from the VA. I was certain, then, that nothing was going to change and filed for divorce. He denied being an addict and mentally ill all through the divorce and through his trial for domestic violence, for which he spent 6 months in jail. Nope, he still doesn't see that he's an addict.
When I first kicked him out, I knew our family desperately needed help. My mom suggested I contact the Dr. Phil show, so I wrote them an e-mail. Within an hour, a producer called me. Dr. Phil was willing to help us! But Karl had to agree to be a part of the show. He wouldn't agree to it. They would have paid for rehab and therapy, but he refused that help.
During the divorce, I looked through his medical records to try to find some reason for all this. Some injury that was worthy of 120 10mg oxycodones and 90 time-release synthetic morphine pills per month. Tried to find some mental illness for which he was self-medicating. I didn't find any physical issues that would warrant that many pills (people who have limbs amputated don't get that many per month), but I did find some vague mental health issues that might explain why he manipulated the doctors into giving him so many pills.
I also found the counseling statements from his superiors ordering him into rehab, ordered during the couple of years before we were married. Not one time in rehab for alcoholism, but at least two times. Two times that he never, ever told me about before we got married. I was stunned. Do you have any idea how bad your drinking has to get before the army will force you into rehab?
Dear VA: Where Were You?
I'm not pleased with the way the military and VA handled this. I called the VA before I filed for divorce, begging them for help with his addiction. I was terrified that, while deep in the throes of a mental breakdown and strung out on a lot of drugs, he was going to do something bad. They told me that, because of privacy issues, they couldn't do anything for me. I tried going to the VA office in town and had the same problem. And I imagine that still, they were giving him all his drugs. They may still be giving him the drugs. The military made a grave error in giving someone with so many mental health issues so many prescription painkillers. Did they not read his file? I believe they are complicit in the crimes he committed against me and our family. They are partly to blame for the devastation he caused in our lives. I tried to get help and they turned their backs on me and our children.
This has been my burden this last year, and it has been very heavy. I read so many articles and blogs and comments about how cheating is the very, Very, VERY worst thing in the whole, wide world. When you talk about the "devastation" caused by a cheating spouse, someone who may have had one fling with one person for a couple of hours? Remember that there are people out there like me, people who would give anything to have to "suffer" through the fallout from a spouse's one-night stand with a living, breathing human. Generally, that mistress won't kill your husband. Generally, that guy won't make your wife give up EVERYTHING - money, kids, their teeth - in exchange for his charms. Addicts will kill and die for their mistresses and they will never give them up. With human infidelity, if you catch them in the act, they will at least pretend that they are willing to give them up. With addiction, they will deny, with the needle in their arm or a pill bottle in their hand, that it's even happening.
So I'm begging you: PLEASE, give me a cheating spouse any day over addiction.
When I worked in Moscow, I had an (American) boss that everyone hated. People in our office were nice enough to him, and respected him enough, but whenever I left his small sphere of uber-influence (mainly anyone who was scared of being fired by him or salivating at the merest chance of being exalted to partner by him), I had a better picture of him, a not-so-nice picture, where he irritated everyone around him and people said nasty things about him and laughed at him behind his back.
But I liked him. He was nice to me, no more or less than a normal boss should be, never tried anything creepy, and paid me well. He had lots of stories to tell, funny stories, exciting stories, always entertaining stories. Working with Presidents Nixon and Ford, Special Forces in Viet Nam, Wild West Russia stories. A couple of times, he sent me to New York City to train in our office there; it was fun in its own way, although I do still hate NYC!
But! On my second trip, he took me out to dinner at a swank sushi restaurant, just he and I, and really, I knew it was just to take me, a lowly paralegal, to a swank place to have swank sushi, so I wasn’t worried at all. And we did eat some great sushi, but then….well, then we started on the sake.
It was terrible, blech! I didn’t drink much, but he went through one, two, three warm bottles, then he started to talk, talk, talk.
This man who personally worked with US Presidents, who met monthly, weekly, daily with amazing, powerful, rich, famous people - he himself practically bled money and influence – and here he was, his eyes thick with tears, sitting across from me, telling me the biggest regret of his life.
When he was young – a young man, not a boy – he worked as a caretaker on a large estate. He and his girlfriend took care of the place in exchange for room and board, and lived a simple and joyous life there. But, he said, he had ambition. Ambition to be rich, to be powerful, to leave all this simple and joyous life behind. (And, he said, that life was indeed joyous, the best time of his life.) And then, to add more insult to his ambition, his girlfriend got pregnant.
He said at first they talked about keeping the baby, but his ambition said no. His ambition made him choose, one or the other, you Can’t Have Your Cake And Eat It Too. As he sat across from me, I saw the hurt and regret in his face, heard it in his voice, how he made her get rid of that baby. Maybe not forced, exactly, but persuaded. And yes, he said, Not A Day Goes By, when he doesn’t think of What Might Have Been, What Could Have Been, if he had married that girl he loved so much and kept that baby that he now so dearly wanted.
And then, oh then! His ambition won out, he accomplished all those things, and he accomplished them alone! All very much alone. And because he was so very, very alone, every Christmas Eve, he would call our office from New York, and search out someone to talk to him. Because no one really wanted to talk to him....only the other partners could wriggle out of it without any repercussions. Eventually the receptionist would trap some poor, lowly, wanting-to-go-home attorney into talking to him, and there they would sit, on the phone, for hours upon hours, listening to him talk, listening to the sad reality of this rich and powerful man’s life.
I hear he’s married now, with a child, and probably not calling lowly attorneys on Christmas Eve. I am glad for him, but I do sometimes wonder, what life would be like had he chosen his love over his ambition, would his life have been any worse.
I don’t ask for much … but I would appreciate SO MUCH if you could forward this to every person you know. Plaster it on your page, PLEASE … get the word out, and bring these killers to justice. Not for me, but for a grieving family that’s waited almost two years for closure on this horrific tragedy. Do it for Nichole’s two babies, that their mother’s killers won’t walk free.
Nichole Alloway disappeared on June 6, 2009, when she was 20 years old. A lot of you probably saw the news that summer of a young woman from North Carolina who went to Ohio to meet up with someone she met on MySpace … and was never heard from again.
My friend, who lived in Washington in 2009 but owns property in the McDermott, Ohio, area was looking at her hometown’s local news on the internet. She was shocked to see her address in the first story she read, and that a dead body was involved.
Who wouldn’t be shocked? She called the people who were house sitting for her and they told her the whole story. Somehow, Nichole had met a friend of the house sitters, she had been out to the house with her new-found Ohio friend, Nichole and her new beau went for a ride in his pickup, Nichole overdosed and died, and his methed-out, panicked brain told him to burn her body then dump her in the creek at the bottom of the hill.
Only … that story isn’t true. On Christmas Eve, 2010, someone told my friend the real story. The story of how their daughter helped the house sitters to trade all the pet food on the property for meth, then torture and mutilate a LOT of cats by (as an example and not encompassing all the filth and degradation) cutting out their tongues while they were still alive.
Oh! And she had also come down to my friend’s house and discovered the body in the barn, and helped the real killers to mutilate and dispose of the body … in exchange for meth. Oh! And maybe Nichole wasn’t really dead when she found her … and also maybe … she wasn’t dead when they started mutilating her.
So my friend and I began to wonder … after they found the body, why didn’t the police come out to the house? They knew the body had at least been mutilated on the property … wouldn’t they want to collect evidence of that crime? In fact, why did they not divulge that two of the first suspects lived at my friend’s house at the time of the murder? Why did the police not give the private investigator, hired by Nichole’s family, access to crucial files? How could they not see the orgy of evidence on my friend’s property? WHY … when contacted by America’s Most Wanted, did they turn down that assistance? Why was this not treated as a murder the moment the coroner came back with results showing NO drugs whatsoever in Nichole’s system? And WHY … why oh why … do they not question the two ladies they now have in custody in state prison and county jail?
Maybe it’s because this is a small community. Maybe it’s because the lead detective on the case – Detective Matt Spencer – is close personal friends, from childhood, with the male suspect? Or maybe it’s because they are just flat-out corrupt.
Everyone is suspicious of the local police. Nichole’s family, my friend, and me. No one trusts them, some people are afraid of them.
Then … yesterday, Detective Spencer unexpectedly shows up at my friend’s house. Not only does he have no business out there, he was told by the Scioto County Sheriff, Marty Donini, that my friend’s property is strictly off-limits, and that he shouldn’t have been working the case.
So why am I writing this to you, my Friends? I need your help in getting this information out there. We have contacted, so far:
The Family (who have our same limitations, and we so desperately want to help them)
US Marshall (who told us they couldn’t help)
FBI (who told us this is “not a Federal Matter,” even though the suspects most likely kidnapped Nichole and were manufacturing meth on the property)
Ohio State Attorney General (who has an answering machine and may not be a real person)
Scioto County Sheriff (who has done NOTHING)
In act, the "Powers that Be" have so far done NOTHING to solve Nichole's murder. If you want to do even more, you can contact the following and tell them that Nichole’s death will not go unnoticed … we will NOT forget about her!!
Scioto County Sheriff:
Marty V. Donini, Sheriff
Scioto County Sheriff's Office
1025 Sixteenth Street
Portsmouth, Ohio 45662
Dispatch: 740-354-7566
Corrections/Jail: 740-355-8277
Investigations: 740-355-8245
Civil Division: 740-355-8269
Fax: 740-355-8237
E-Mail: scso@sciotocountysheriff.com
FBI Field Office (Cincinnati):
John Weld Peck Federal Bldg.
550 Main Street, Suite 9000
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Phone: (513) 421-4310
Fax: (513) 562-5650
E-mail: Cincinnati@ic.fbi.gov
Ohio US Marshall:
Southern District of Ohio (S/OH)
U.S. Marshal: Cathy Jones
U.S. Courthouse
85 Marconi Boulevard, Room 460
Columbus, OH 43215
(614) 469-5540
Ohio State Attorney General Office: Special Prosecutions (614) 644-0729
Everyone publicizing the murder of Nichole Alloway is being told that by sharing this information – simply reporting the fact she was murdered, without details – is “hindering the investigation.” I think the Scioto County Sheriff’s office doesn’t want anyone sharing the fact that they are either rampantly corrupt or grossly incompetent.
Tell me what you think:
On June 10, 2009, Nichole Alloway’s family reported her missing.
Before her body was found on July 12 of the same year, a woman came forward with the details of Nichole’s murder. This woman did not go directly to the Sheriff, she went through a local private investigator, who told the Sheriff.
The police did not question anyone in connection with Nichole Alloway’s murder. They did not go to the property to collect evidence.
In the fall of 2009, Richard Howard, serving a prison sentence for “gross abuse of [Nichole Alloway’s] corpse,” tells police the details of Nichole’s murder.
The police did not question anyone in connection with Nichole Alloway’s murder. They did not go to the property to collect evidence.
In January 2010, Nichole’s family received an e-mail detailing her murder from a 2nd woman. The family forwarded this e-mail to both a detective and prosecutor in the Scioto County Sheriff’s office.
The police did not question anyone in connection with Nichole Alloway’s murder. They did not go to the property to collect evidence.
In August 2010, Nichole’s family received an e-mail detailing her murder from a third woman. The family forwarded this e-mail to both a detective and prosecutor in the Scioto County Sheriff’s office.
The police did not question anyone in connection with Nichole Alloway’s murder. They did not go to the property to collect evidence.
In January 2011, police finally went to the property, but took no evidence. They asked why people are afraid to talk to them, and cared more about their reputation in the community than solving this murder.
Please, prove me wrong, Detective Matt Spencer and the Scioto County Sheriff’s office. SOLVE Nichole’s Murder!
I am brand-new to dating. I say "brand-new" because I was married for a long time and for years, I read the online laments of single people in this new era of dating and thanked my lucky stars I didn't have to be out there looking for a lover.
Alas, the Universe had other plans for me! Last fall, I had to kick out my husband because of a wicked drug addiction and dangerous mental illness; I've been officially divorced for about a month. I haven't even "put myself out there" (I'm not ready to date yet), but I'm getting plenty of daily offers that bother more than excite me.
In this series, I'll be sharing my apprehensions with returning to the dating pool. In this second installment, let's discuss what not to do in regard to romance and sex.
Sex is the Most and Least Important Thing in a Relationship
I lost my virginity at a pretty young age, not because I was molested but because the opportunity presented itself and I was eager to participate. It's always been an important part of my life and relationships, and although the quality was sometimes poor, even bad sex can lead to great friendships.
I've never had sex with someone I didn't know or like. Personality is far more important to me than looks; some of the worst experiences I had were with people who were exceptionally attractive yet woefully untalented in the bedroom. When I was younger, I was willing to give myself in that way, but as I grow older, I find that I am not at all willing to overlook character flaws and behaviors from men that are mostly my age.
You weren't allowed to act this way in your prime (and thankfully, a lot of the technology didn't exist), so why would you act this way now?
Please stop with this nonsense as soon as possible:
You're not doing me a favor by hitting on me. If I don't know you and you send me a flirty message online, know that there are at least a dozen other messages in my inbox from a dozen other complete strangers that said exactly the same thing. Also, if I seem less than impressed or ignore you, don't get an attitude about it, like talking to me is some sort of heroic gesture. I have a vagina. If I turn you down, there will be 20 more guys there to pick up the slack. So again, you better have a blindingly fantastic personality - that has nothing to do with sex - or you're just going to blend in with the rest of the creeps on the internet.
Ask me to sleep with you or ask me to send sexy photos of myself within the first day of meeting you.If the internet has taught me anything, it's that men want pictures of women - ANY women - and that most men will sleep with any woman, totally ignoring that's she's fat, toothless, pregnant, disabled, fore-shortened, or her face picked apart during meth hallucinations. Unless you're willing to pay several months of my mortgage for just one time, don't count on that happening within an hour of me accepting your friend request on Facebook.
You have cutesy names for sex.The word "playtime" should not be uttered in regard to, before, during, or after sex. This is not playtime. "Playtime" has something to do with children, and thinking about children and sex together creeps me the hell out. So talk dirty. Curse. I would, a million times over, prefer that a man call me "bitch" and treat me like a whore than whisper "baby" while plying me with stuffed animals and candy to get me to sleep with him. No, really.
I've had more sexual partners than Princess Di and less than Madonna. I was married twice and have three kids so obviously, I've had sex. Guys seem comfortable knowing about those two partners, but don't really want to know about any other men. They certainly don't want an exact number, especially if it goes over 10. My number is over 10. I'm not bragging, nor am I ashamed. I am, however,a stay-at-home mom in middle age, so most of those encounters happened a very, very long time ago. Just enjoy my abilities without knowing how I acquired them.
I felt the spark, too.There was a connection. We're both interesting people who have trouble finding people with whom we actually enjoy talking. But if you call me a couple hours after the date, gushing - completely overtaken with emotion - about how I'm your "Soul Mate?" Please back off, you're creeping me out. I have been in a couple of really bad relationships, so this "instant forever companion" thing you're suggesting makes me want to go get a restraining order, not a marriage license.
I prefer physical imperfections.Even at my physical best, I didn't like men who worked out until their muscles felt like giant rubber chew toys. Six-pack abs? No thanks! Manscaped? Ew! Dad bod? Hell yeah! I do have types I like more than others, but generally, if you have a non-psycho amount of confidence and a decent personality, I'll at least give you a date. The only thing I ask is that you don't smell like you've been bathing in foot sweat, exclusively eating raw garlic and your clothes should fit the body you have now, not the body you had 3 kids ago. (And yes, women are not the only ones guilty of "letting themselves go" after kids.)
I'm trying not to laugh at/be creeped out by/post online for all to ridicule the picture of your penis. I've had my fair share of partners. It was ability, not size or shape, that made many of them good in bed. Also, I sometimes watch porn. So unless you have something that would impress Ron Jeremy himself, please don't embarrass yourself by sending me unsolicited photos of your privates. It makes you look insecure and desperate.
Getting me drunk to "loosen me up." If you think you need to get me drunk to sleep with you, every drink you buy makes me more and more certain of how bad you are in bed. Also, you must not think your personality is enough to win me over, so we're pretty much done 20 minutes into the date. Sad, because a night that could have led to at least mediocre sex is now taking a creepy turn that makes me wonder if you're a serial rapist.
You'll have plenty of time to buy me gifts when we're dating. Flowers and candy are great, but if you bring a pile of gifts to our first date, I'll get the impression you're trying to manipulate me. Calm down, be yourself and let's have a good talk. You can buy me a fancy new car in a couple years. (Kidding, KIDDING!!)
Everyone views the concept of punishment differently. There are people who believe that a heavy hand coupled with a cold heart is the best way to end crime in our country; others believe that a few ounces of prevention, caring and rehabilitation are the way to create a better society in which punishment becomes unnecessary. Unfortunately, we now live in a society that greatly values punishment while ignoring the consequences of meting out those unfair, impractical and sometimes inhumane punishments, even after people have done their time. Many of these punishments seem designed to force people back into prison; indeed, many people, weary from drug addiction, bad choices, bad histories, mental illness and the psychological and emotional side-effects of incarceration itself, are unable to cope with the enormous pressures they face “on the outside.”
Before they went to prison, most of these people were not living ideal lives. Yes, there were bad choices being made. In fact, the vast majority of people in America’s prisons today are there as a result of bad choices. Stealing cars is a bad choice. Starting fights and breaking into people’s houses are bad choices. One may come from a bad background with little hope to forge a better life, but most of the time, one is given choices and it is up to them to decide what path they will take.
Jeffrey Dahmer: Wired to kill.
Serial killers, serial rapists, and pedophiles that will never be rehabilitated - those that are "wired" differently - must be considered separately. Although, judging from the punishments alone (without inclusion of the death penalty), one would think that all offenders are serial killers and serial rapists and pedophiles. The mentally ill or mentally disabled that wind up in prison are usually incapable of making any rational choices, and not subject to “normal” punishment. The death penalty cannot be taken out of the realm of possibility for some; mental hospitals, halfway houses or group homes should be opened or reopened to deal with the crushing number of people in our prison system whose biggest crime is having an uncontrollable mental illness that makes them act inappropriately and/or harm others. But most people who end up in prison are not the Unabomber or Son of Sam or Charles Manson or Jeffrey Dahmer. Most people are relatively normal. And what is most troubling about our post-incarceration punishment is that we are turning these “normal” people into the careless, violent, hopeless, selfish individuals we are most afraid of by sabotaging their reentry into society and dashing their hopes to regain a normal life, and, in many cases, giving them no option but to return to prison.
Bad seed or troubled kid crying for help?
Rustin has been in trouble his whole life. His cousin remembers coming to school every day and seeing him in the principal’s office. Yup, she thought, He did something to get in trouble again. With his background, it wasn’t surprising. He never met his dad. They were unbelievably poor. He cried for help for years, and no one listened. At first, it was small stuff like him bullying other kids and daily trips to the principal’s office (he told me he didn't have any friends in elementary school because he "always beat everybody up"), but Rustin’s demons pushed him in all the wrong directions. However, it wasn’t until 1994, when he was 15, that all that trouble started to stick. He wasn’t a kid anymore, and they needed to teach him a lesson or he was going to wind up in real trouble. Mostly, Rustin did a lot of community service as punishment. He paid a lot of fines. Shoplifting. Fighting. Menacing. Theft. He kept pushing the boundaries, and they kept letting him cross the line.
But he just wasn’t getting it.
In addition to the fighting, harassing, menacing, etc., Rustin was busy racking up traffic violations. A lot of traffic violations. So the judge required him to submit an SR22 form:
"To get your driver's license back after having certain suspensions or revocations, or to prevent your license from being suspended, you may be required to file an SR-22. This is a rider to an insurance policy in which the insurance company guarantees you will keep insurance in effect for a certain period of time … The form itself is not an insurance policy. It is a guarantee by the insurance company that you will keep insurance in effect for a certain period of time. If you don't keep the SR22 current, the insurance company will notify the Motor Vehicle Division that the SR22 is no longer in effect, but is still required. Your driver's license will be suspended for that reason alone … If you decide to change insurance companies, you must get a new SR22 filed before the old one goes out of effect." (SR22)
Rustin was initially required to file this form in 1998, a privilege he very much earned. Reckless driving, driving without insurance, driving without registration, driving without a license, and speeding are just some of the charges he incurred as a young adult. This isn’t unusual; it's common knowledge that young drivers, especially young male drivers, can be reckless and take more risks than older male drivers in their mid-30s.
The SR22, theoretically, is a reasonable punishment to make someone a more responsible driver. Unfortunately, what was meant to make a 20 year old more responsible has turned into a minor nightmare.
Rustin's 2015 mug shot.
Colorado Springs Police Department
Rustin is now 37 years old. But he is still required to maintain an active insurance policy for a period of three years. In the years since the judge first ordered him to file it, he has not been able to fulfill the requirement. The SR22 requires that he hold insurance whether or not he drives a car. Even if it was physically impossible for him to use a motor vehicle (e.g., incarceration or injury), and therefore did not need insurance, the clock reset every time he let his insurance policy lapse. It can be reset an unlimited number of times; every time one fails to hold an insurance policy, even if you let it lapse for one day, the clock can be reset. Again, this is regardless of whether or not you are operating or are even able to operate a motor vehicle. Again, Rustin was initially required to file this form in 1998. But because of his incarcerations and subsequent paroles - at which time he was not able or allowed to drive or even own a car - the clock was reset. What this means for Rustin is that the requirement of submitting this form only goes away in 2015, and that is only if he does not allow his insurance to expire for any reason!
Again, this means he will have been punished for those traffic offenses for a whopping 17 years! There are murderers that receive less prison time.
But so troubled a youth had more to offer, and opportunity presented itself in female form.
Most crimes don't deserve life sentences
His next conviction stemmed from what most would consider a poor choice, not an abnormality or “evil.” When he was 19, Rustin had consensual sex with a 14-year-old girl. It is important to note that if they had started their sexual relationship just two weeks earlier, when Rustin was 18, he would not have been prosecuted at all. The girl’s parents brought charges against Rustin; at first, they tried to have him charged with forceful sexual conduct, for which there was no factual basis. Additionally, it was known to her parents that she and Rustin were dating; they approved of that relationship as long as there was no sexual conduct. Rustin’s grandmother said that the girl testified, under oath, that she and Rustin had consensual sex several times. This may have been poor impulse control on Rustin’s part, but it certainly would not be considered “pedophilia” or “abnormal.” Rustin was, after all, still a teenager himself and this girl was well into adolescence.
This case was greatly exacerbated by the understandable anger of the girl’s parents. She was quite young at the time and it would be understandably difficult to accept that one's young daughter was already sexually active. But does that give one the right to cry RAPE! (especially when the girl herself said she and Rustin had consensual sex several times and he had never forced this sex)? During the trial, it came to light that Rustin was not her only sexual partner and she did not lose her virginity to him, which was embarrassing for both her and her parents. This information must have come as quite a shock to the girl’s parents: A church pastor and his wife. However, their anger did not justify their actions. This initial accusation paved the road that he is now stuck on, and will travel the rest of his life unless the law is changed.
Because it was such a serious charge, there were discussions about a plea deal early on. Factually, Rustin had sex with her; he was considered an adult and she was considered a child, in the eyes of the law. Rustin was afraid to go to prison, so was looking for as little jail time as possible. Unfortunately, the prosecutor was more than willing to make a deal.
It begs the question: Is it moral/ethical to force people to accept a plea deal out of fear of jail/prison that will burden them with a label that will punish them for the rest of their lives? To be fair to the prosecutor, the current sex offender registration law, the Lifetime Sex Offender Supervision program (Colorado Revised Statue 16-22-110 (1998)) did not exist when Rustin was tried in 1997. Had Rustin known the future punishment for his crime, he probably would not have accepted the plea deal for the more serious charge.
Also, is it fair to offer a deal to someone if it is known they did not commit such a crime? Rustin did not sexually assault a child (a person that has not reached adolescence), although that is what his record states. Is it fair to follow the letter of the law, and not the spirit? In sex offense cases, as in many drug offense cases, the court is required to follow the letter of the law, regardless of its practicality or fairness. Again, the prosecutor may have known about the serious consequences he would impose on Rustin if he accepted the deal, but it is unlikely. Had the judge employed the spirit of the law and considered the very small span of time – two weeks – in which Rustin’s actions were either not a crime (when he was 18) or were a serious crime (when he was 19), and had the judge been able to be lenient where leniency was reasonable, he could have made a more practical and fair decision regarding Rustin’s punishment.
So now, Rustin must go to the Colorado Springs Police Department and register as a Sex Offender every three months, for the rest of his life. He must note this on formal job applications. He is not allowed to work at schools, even as a janitor during that time when children are not in the school. Not even in schools or institutions at which the students are all over the age of 18. All of this is prohibited, even though he was determined to be normal and highly unlikely to sexually re-offend.
Before Rustin went to prison a second time, on July 20, 2007, L. Dennis Kleinsasser, Ph.D., performed a psychosexual evaluation as part of a larger “Adult Pre-Sentence Investigation Report.” This report was initiated before his second trial, in 2007 - for buying and selling stolen auto parts - by Rustin’s attorney, Lari Trogani. Dr. Kleinsasser conducted several tests to determine whether he was “at risk of sexually reoffending.” (2 Kleinsasser) This test was “not a full psychological assessment, but is a specially designed sex offense specific [sic] assessment to determine treatment amenability [and] risk for sexual re-offense.” (1 Kleinsasser) This evaluation was performed three years after his first incarceration, where he served his time for the sex offense concurrently with the 4th degree felony theft charge.
In his report, Kleinsasser asks the reader to “[k]eep in mind that normal heterosexual adult males show objective sexual interest in both adolescent and adult females.” (11) Kleinsasser also quotes the first doctor that examined Rustin in 1998, Dr. Pam Hiner: “This Abel screen was consistent with the current Abel screen in finding him attracted to adult and adolescent females …” (11) In other words, although this behavior is considered illegal, it is not considered, psychologically, to be abnormal. Additionally, Kleinsasser determined that Rustin was low-risk and low danger. Kleinsasser found that Rustin did not have inappropriate attractions to nor fantasies about very young girls or boys and, when tested for his sexual preferences preferred adult females and was “disgusted with all other presentations,” (10) which we can assume includes, but is not limited to, pedophilia, homosexuality and sexual violence.
With so many dangerous sex offenders out on the streets, why does the criminal justice system spend so much time on offenders like Rustin? It can be argued that punishing people who have committed similar or lesser offenses, such as public urination, devalues the entire Sex Offender Registry system. If you know one person who is not deserving of the sex offender title, then who is to say all people shamed on the web sites are equally undeserving of such humiliation?
Rustin’s name, address, and identifying markings are listed on several sex offender sites. These sites use mug shots that make everybody look like a dangerous criminal. And regardless of the disclaimers, people use these sites to exact revenge on people on which they have very little information and to which they have no personal ties.
Rustin used to live with his mom; then her elderly neighbor died. The neighbor's son took possession of the house, and he happened to be the local Fire Chief. The new local Fire Chief that didn’t previously know or care that a sex offender was living across the street from his parents’ house, but now that he was moving in with his family and young children, it was suddenly a big deal. Not bothering to gather any information about Rustin’s case, he went and raised hell to the Police Chief, who promptly went to Rustin's mother's house (she had to leave work to meet them there), along with two detectives. Then they called his mother’s landlady (they got her phone number from court documents) and informed her that there was a sex offender living in her house. The landlady informed Rustin’s mother that if he did not move out that day, she would evict everyone.
This punishment seems ridiculously harsh. He committed this crime a long time ago and had not sexually reoffended since. Realistically, the landlady could have specified that she did not want a convicted felon living in her home; but she had no issue, per se, with him being a convicted felon. Her issue was specifically with him being a sex offender. The police that came to the house had previously been sympathetic to Rustin’s cause, even recommending that he appeal his status, before the Fire Chief took possession of the house. Of course they knew the details of the case and knew he was non-violent and normal. And yet, the detective he had spoken with personally each time he registered at the police station betrayed him the most. She threatened him and viciously insulted his grandmother, who was there only to deliver Rustin to the house because his car broke down. This detective initiated the call to the landlord, infringing on his basic human right of a place to live.
Forcing sex offenders to be homeless is bad for communities
In the span of an hour, Rustin was homeless, with no other immediate housing options. His grandmother could not take him into her home because she had renters with small children in the apartment attached to her home. The Justice Center of The Council of State Governments (Justice Center) states that:
"Securing housing is one of the most immediate challenges individuals leaving prison face upon their release. Research has shown that the types of living arrangements and neighborhoods to which exiting prisoners return are often related to the likelihood that they will recidivate and return to prison. While many of the formerly incarcerated stay with family members – at least early on, others are confronted by limited housing options. This is especially true for those with mental health or substance abuse problems. Obtaining housing is complicated by a host of factors, including the scarcity of affordable and available housing, legal barriers and regulations, landlords’ prejudices against formerly incarcerated individuals, and strict eligibility requirements for federally subsidized housing." (Housing)
The Justice Center also emphasizes how important it is for people who have been incarcerated to have a smooth transition back into “normal” life, to prevent them from returning to prison:
"The challenges associated with reentry after incarceration are intensified for individuals who have been convicted of sex offenses. Research reveals that upon return to the community, sex offenders are more likely to be rearrested for a non-sex crime than a new sex crime, and that supervision violation rates are high. The field struggles with developing effective comprehensive reentry strategies that respond to the myriad general and specialized needs of sex offenders." (D’Amora)
They stress three benefits, which they believe are most important for sex offenders, because of the enormous stigma attached to that label:
Public Safety: Reducing recidivism results in fewer victims of crime and decreases reincarceration, and improves public safety;
Stronger Communities and Families: Reentry can promote family reunification, pro-social relationships, improved economic outcomes, and healthier communities;
Smarter Use of Taxpayer Dollars: Reincarceration is costly and diverts public resources away from other public priorities, such as education and social supports. (6 Overview)
The Justice Center also states that “Sex Offenders are Not All The Same,” (22 Overview) and that “Enhanced Assessment Strategies [need to acknowledge] that ‘one size fits all’ is not effective [and needs to] shift toward assessment-driven strategies.” (35 Overview) For Rustin, that would mean that the court could determine whether supervision should continue based on his psychosexual evaluations and his likelihood to reoffend, rather than being mandatorily sentenced. Although it should be noted that the authors point out in the Overview that Sex Offenders have a higher overall rate of recidivism (36%) for crime in general. (27 Overview) It could be theorized that because of mandatory sentencing, as with drug offenses, convicted sex offenders tend to become hopeless and develop a sense of pervasive fatalism that causes them to take extraordinary risks out of a sense of feeling that they will eventually be punished for something regardless. Rustin, unfortunately, fell into that category.
Rustin states that one of the most frustrating aspects of his parole was mandatory sex offender treatment. As noted, the examining psychologist determined Rustin was unlikely to sexually reoffend and that his sexual preferences were not abnormal. However, because of the sex offense and because he was on parole, Rustin was forced to attend classes in which many dangerous, violent and mentally ill sexual predators or those with serious sexual abnormalities were present. He said it made him physically sick to hear people flippantly speak of the terrible crimes they committed, sometimes against their own children or grandchildren. Rustin was nearly kicked out of a class when he confronted another “student,” telling him that if he ever did those things to his children, he would kill him. Why does the state feel the need to group all sex offenders together, regardless of their offense? It seems unusually punitive, or perhaps lazy, to put people who committed minor sex offenses such as public urination with those who, it could be argued, should be locked up forever. Rustin learned in prison treatment that his actions were wrong, so he was not in a state of denial. Could one reasonably say that someone who streaks across a football field is in the same league or deserves the same punishment as, say, Albert Fish?
The Justice Center notes that 43% of sex offenders will reoffend, but that only 5.3% were rearrested for a sex offense. “Over one third (38%) were returned to prison within three years … [and] 71% [of those] were returned for technical violations.” (emphasis added) (55 Overview)They strive to create programs and policy that will keep non-violent sex offenders out of prison and become productive members of society.The Justice Center notes several “Key Elements of a Sex Offender Reentry Strategy,” the following of which would have greatly assisted Rustin with his reentry:
"1. Collaborate to achieve an “in to out” approach, which would include Promote seamless continuity of care and Establish community supports [which includes:]
[Managing] sex offenders in prison with an eye toward release;
Engage offenders to identify, needs for pre- and post-release success
Develop a comprehensive reentry roadmap and case management plan
Provide programs and services [for:] Cognitive skills, Substance abuse, Vocational [skills], Educational [skills], Mental health, [and should be] Sex offense-specific
3. Recognize the value of discretionary release decision - making [(not a “one-size-fits-all approach)]
5. Adopt a success-oriented approach to post-release supervision" (39 Overview)
Rustin spent time at the Correctional Institute in Sterling, Colorado.
Does the system set them up to fail?
Rustin may have been convicted of a sex offense, but his true gift was stealing cars. Both of his incarcerations were for theft. Initially, in 2000, Rustin was charged with 3rd Degree Theft (F3) ($15,000 or more), which should have earned him far more prison time. When they arrested him, they charged him with stealing over 3,000 cars. This number was exaggerated, but not by much. Rustin admits he stole far more than $15,000 worth of cars and was very lucky to get such a light sentence. He admits that he may have ruined some people’s lives by stealing their cars. (“What if they got fired because they couldn’t get to work because I stole their car?”) In the first theft case, Rustin was allowed to plead to a lesser charge, that of Theft (F4) ($500-$15,000) and receive less prison time. Upon his release, he was, of course, subject to the same punishments all convicted felons must endure.
Most people who do prison time are required to pay restitution. When Rustin was released from prison in 2004, he was to repay the state $53,000. As of today, Rustin still owes the State of Colorado about $150,000, a sum he is sure he will never be able to repay. This restitution would be automatically deducted from his pay, if he could find a job. As many college graduates now know, paying your every day expenses and paying back an enormous debt can be overwhelming, discouraging, and for many people, nearly impossible. And college graduates can hold normal, high-paying jobs. Parolees and convicted felons are not that lucky.
Just getting a job is especially challenging for convicted felons. There is great prejudice against those that have been incarcerated. It can be argued that because of their bad choices, they do not deserve a second or third chance. Some would argue that some people should never get out of prison, even for non-violent offenses. But as a society, if we agree that people who non-violently offend should not have the same prison sentence as a serial killer, then we need to decide when punishment truly ends. Maybe the idea of parole is outdated. Or maybe people should serve longer sentences and be done with it. Maybe the halfway house model should be used more frequently, so that institutionalization occurs less frequently. But if we are going to let people out of prison, we cannot set the stage for them to reoffend simply so that we can turn around and send them back.
Taking into account that many people who commit heinous crimes such as mass murder are never suspected of being capable of such atrocities – and are rarely arrested for more than a DUI or drug offense prior to the massacres they commit - felons should be exempted from reporting their incarceration to some employers. Of course, some jobs would require that people have a clean background (e.g., banks or schools), but jobs such as construction, machining or garbage men should not require such rigorous standards. Although, in today’s job market, it could be argued that because of high demand and few jobs, employers need to have a way to choose the best workers amongst the dozens, if not thousands, of applicants. But if we as a society are serious about their rehabilitation, we need to clean some slates and truly give them a second chance, not just pretend to give them a second chance by letting them out and then burdening them with numerous disadvantages.
Jobs: Even tougher to get with a felony record
There are added stresses to maintaining employment for those who have been incarcerated. Most parolees are required to have full-time employment, but they may not be able to own a car, cell phone OR maintain a bank account. This unfairly marginalizes parolees. Oftentimes, parolees are required to attend court-ordered treatment during the work day, for which they must pay about $40 per class. Weekly attendance is generally required, and even if the parolee was not convicted of any drug offense, they must attend drug and alcohol counseling. So they are working to pay for treatment they may not need – that they greatly resent - that interferes with their work schedule, which gives them yet another disadvantage as an employee.
There are also those who are released from prison who are physically or mentally disabled and unable to work. Many men suffer severe injuries in prison such as traumatic brain injuries, broken bones that are not set, and of course the psychological trauma of being incarcerated. Rustin was ambushed in his cell by five men; they beat him unconscious and he never reported or sought medical assistance for the attack. They are released from prison and are virtually unemployable because of their physical or mental disabilities (and because of their prison record), but have no medical files documenting their injuries nor have access to the resources necessary to put together a file to successfully apply for Supplemental Security Insurance (SSI). They don’t get jobs that offer health insurance (few American workers in general are employed in jobs that give them full insurance benefits), so they are not able to have a doctor assist them in proving their disabilities. So they live in a limbo of pain, confusion and unemployment that sets them up for a return to prison.
People on parole are also strictly prohibited from associating with other people in the same circumstance. This does not mean that you cannot work or live in a group home with someone else with a criminal conviction, which is considered being in contact with other convicted criminals. But it does mean one is not allowed to befriend or “hang out” with those people with whom they would most likely share the common, traumatic experience of having been incarcerated. Research has shown that friendships are formed because of similarities, (356 McCornack) and it goes to reason that parolees would naturally relate to other parolees because of their shared traumatic experience of being in prison, especially early in the parole period. Peeples notes that one may attend court-approved functions together, but they are not allowed to hang out together after the function. Peeples uses the example of going for coffee after treatment or classes; this is not allowed for parolees under current law.
Certainly, further isolating those who are already socially and psychologically vulnerable from those who could most understand them surely must hinder their recovery and re-entry into general society. Further, is it truly necessary to separate those people not convicted of the same offense, or from those not currently under state supervision? The logic behind this must have been that they didn’t want them planning to commit further offenses, but it can be argued that the isolation they experience would, in itself, predispose them to commit further crime without anyone’s assistance.
Does reclassifying necessities as "luxury items" further sabotage prisoners' transition back into society?
Several other punishments meted out by the state benefit neither the parolee nor the state. For example, there are so-called “privileges” that are prohibited to parolees. Some of these “privileges” include: possessing a cell phone, computer or pager; owning or driving a car; entering into a contract such as a lease or buying a car; getting a fishing license; or owning/using a credit card, debit card or even a bank account. (88 Peeples) Can you imagine, living without the “privilege” of a cell phone, computer or car? Prohibiting these items makes it challenging for the parolee to live in our modern, tech-saturated society. It could be argued that none of these are a privilege, but rather, necessities.
It seems excessively punitive to prohibit a parolee from having a bank account, which most employers require you to have for the direct deposit of a paycheck. It also goes to reason that those with limited access to housing or transportation should not carry large amounts of cash on their person.
One could be made under- or unemployable if they have no access to a motor vehicle. In Colorado Springs, there is no bus service on Sundays or late at night. It is likely that a parolee would get a job that would require them to work “off hours,” and not having transportation options on Sundays or at night would severely limit your ability to work.
Because they can’t use a vehicle means they do a great deal of walking or biking, and a great deal of time using public transportation. Prohibiting them from using a cell phone or pager and requiring them to use a home phone (land line) is unfair to the parolee and impractical and inconvenient for the parole officer. Fitting each parolee with a tracking device not only infringes on their human rights, but it would be impossible to track each and every parolee 24 hours per day, seven days per week. That would greatly increase the number of corrections staff, which would require more tax dollars in an already overburdened corrections system.
Old-school flip phones could be given to those recently released from prison, allowing their parole officers and police to find them more quickly and easily, which in turn would save the taxpayers money.
Additionally, parolees must check in, via telephone, every day, for the entirety of their parole (which can be several years) to find out if they are required to take a drug or alcohol test. They must call in by a certain time every day. Rustin was required to call every day for two years. If they don’t have access to a motor vehicle, the parolee may need to conduct more business on the phone than would someone with the ability to drive all over town to complete tasks such as apply for medical benefits or a job. Not having access to a cell phone could make this requirement impractical and unfair. Punishment cannot be made so that the parolee is set up to fail; it is grossly unfair, impractical, difficult to sustain and the cost of sending parolees with limited cell phone access back to prison simply because they do not have stable access to a phone would prove a huge burden to taxpayers as well.
A better solution is to give all parolees, and all those recently released from prison, a simple, inexpensive cell phone, plus free minutes, on which people can contact them as needed and they can conduct necessary business and contact the people in their support network. Also, it will increase their confidence by giving them added independence and a feeling of inclusion with the larger society, of which a major majority owns and frequently operates cell phones.
Personal computers were long ago considered a luxury item; now it’s nearly impossible to accomplish every day business without one. Most businesses require prospective employees to apply online. Most banking is done online. Businesses often direct customers to their websites, encouraging people to use the site rather than call to speak with an employee. Some companies require their bills be paid exclusively online. And if one has limited access to a car, being able to look up the hours of operation of a business online certainly helps people to plan their travel schedule.
Surprisingly, however, upon release, parolees are immediately eligible to serve on juries, and indeed may be jailed if they fail to respond to the jury summons. They are not allowed to serve on a grand jury, but someone could, theoretically, be required to go straight to the courthouse from prison. Rustin received a jury summons that required him to appear about two weeks after he got out of prison the second time, in 2011. He followed all instructions, but when called to the stand during jury selection he informed those in attendance that he would not convict any person of any crime because the whole system was corrupt.
So we don’t allow them to own a cell phone but they can help to decide the fate of one of their peers? Is it good social policy to summon those recently released from prison to jury duty? Wouldn’t they have a skewed opinion of the legal system? Could they competently decide the fate of their peers? It can be argued that there should be a break in the time between getting out of prison and serving on a jury. The parolee could be feeling a great deal of depression or may be overwhelmed by their new life on the outside; it could be argued further that those suffering from any mental illness should be evaluated before being able to serve on a jury. Convicted felons are also allowed to vote (but not parolees). Again, we give them this tremendous privilege of voting, but we don’t allow them access to a computer so they can send an e-mail to their lady friend?
We must all work together to make the world a better place for everyone, even if it takes a lot of forgiveness and even more work
The United States … we are seeing unprecedented change that, at this moment, the moment you read this, will affect untold generations of humanity. People will talk about this era and be astounded that we survived it. The speed at which information bounces and rebounds from every corner of the globe is making us rethink – sometimes from moment to moment - much of our social structure and our values; sometimes this self-reflection is painful. But we have stagnated far too long with educational models that don’t educate our children, drug programs that don’t rehabilitate our addicts, healthcare systems that bankrupt the sick, a military that injures and kills its best and bravest, a penal system designed to keep people in jail forever and a government that doesn’t listen.
In 2008, our economy nearly collapsed and people have been struggling ever since; but these sacrifices are making us reexamine those things that were rotting our country from the inside out: Greed, Excess, Callousness, Shallowness. Are we a country that chooses to incarcerate the most vulnerable and downtrodden of our society, while letting those that nearly destroyed the lives of millions of people go free? Are we a country that should be proud of having more prisoners than any other country on the whole planet? What is the legacy we are leaving for our children, especially those children that have one or both parents incarcerated, parents who went to prison before they were born and will miss graduations, weddings, births and even possibly deaths? It is our responsibility to make this a better country not only for ourselves, but for those future generations that we will never know. Dostoyevsky said, “You can judge a society by how well it treats its prisoners.” What does that say about us? It says we put the interests of for-profit prisons above human life, we value the law more than humanity, that we do not value families, we would rather kill than rehabilitate, that the lives of those representing the state (police) have more value than that of an ordinary citizen, and that we often put ourselves in God’s place when handing out punishment. We need to crash back down to Earth and start treating all people with understanding and humanity, and adopt a policy of providing the best possible life everyone, rather than living in a world of dysfunction that thrives off the cycle of pain and suffering.
Bibliography
D'Amora, David, M.S., LPC, CFC, and Kurt Bumby, Ph.D. "An Overview of Sex Offender Reentry: Building a Foundation for Professionals." CSG Justice Center. N.p., 23 Apr. 2014. Web. 20 July 2014.
2011, June. An Overview of Sex Offender Reentry: (n.d.): n. Web. 20 July 2014
Kleinsasser, L. Dennis, Ph.D. Psychosexual Evaluation of Rustin Sparks. Rep. Colorado Springs, CO: n.p., 2007. Print.
"Housing." CSG Justice Center. Justice Center / The Council of State Governments, 23 Apr. 2014. Web. 20 July 2014.
McCornack, Steven. Reflect & Relate: An Introduction to Interpersonal Communication. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 20013. Print.
Peeples, Carol, and Christie Donner. Getting On After Getting Out: A Re-Entry Guide for Colorado. Denver, CO: Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition, 2007. Print.
"SR22 and Insurance Information." Colorado Department of Revenue. State of Colorado, n.d. Web. 19 July 2014.
