Washington State Governor refuses to accept any more Arkansas Parolee's

[ljs]

I am making this new thread instead of adding to the existing thread due to the fact I was hoping to discuss more of the topic about the cop killer being sent from Arkansas to Washington, and then Arkansas refusing to take him back on their warrant. I have a hard time believing this is an isolated incident, and would bet this has happened in other states. Is it fair for one state to refuse their own parolee on violations? Especially for someone with such a violent history.

If you are on probation in Washington, you have to ask a judge to allow you to reside in another state, they seldom do.

I see civil suits out of this, as what appears to be a very preventable tragedy.

http://www.king5.com/news/Governor-says-no-more-Arkansas-prisoners-78341957.html

SEATTLE - Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire said Wednesday the state will no longer accept any more convicted criminals on parole from Arkansas until she's assured of a better system for sending them back.

Officials in Washington and Arkansas have been sparring over who had responsibility for Maurice Clemmons, who police believe killed four Lakewood police officers Sunday at a Parkland coffee shop. Clemmons was shot to death early Tuesday by a Seattle police officer.

Gregoire says she is extremely troubled by emails that surfaced Tuesday. The emails showed Arkansas officials didn't want to keep a warrant in effect which would have kept Clemmons in Pierce County Jail. The emails also showed how desperately officials in Washington – prosecutors, a sheriff’s deputy, the Attorney General’s Office and the Department of Corrections – were trying to get Arkansas to work with them to keep Clemmons in jail, but it appears Arkansas wasn’t willing to help.

“I am so troubled that today I've asked (DOC Secretary Eldon Vail) to discontinue, under interstate compact, accepting any individuals from Arkansas until we can have a further review of not only the interstate compact system and whether it's really living up to its responsibilities, but whether Arkansas is living up to its responsibilities and I have a major questions in my head about that," said Gregoire. "And until I am confident they are, I've asked the secretary not to accept any interstate compact (inmates) from Arkansas.”

An interstate compact is an agreement between states to accept parolees who qualify to go from one state to another. The charge by Gregoire is that Arkansas wasn't following the rules, which is why she's suspended taking any parolees from Arkansas.

KING 5 has tried to contact Arkansas officials involved in the case via telephone and email for comment; so far, they have not returned the calls

[Mickalino]

ljs - off topic a little, but have you ever heard of a cop-killing go unsolved ?

just curious, because obviously there's a lot more resolve in hunting down a murderer when the victim(s) are cops, and every time I hear of someone killing a cop, they always find the guy......unlike a lot of other murders that go unsolved.

not trying to imply any opinion whatsoever on the general subject, but just curious if you've ever heard it happen

[ljs]

Mick- yes, as a matter of fact there is an officer who was killed in the 40's or 50's in the same town I was a cop, and to this day no one has been arrested for it.

I know of several cases where the cop killer suspect was Id'd, but never located. The most famous one is a police chief from Pennsylvania who was killed in 70's or early 80's- the suspect has been in the top FBI wanted list ever since.

I'm sure there are more unsolved, but think about it- most everyone, even most criminals are against killing/assualting cops- so you tend to have more people who will cooperate than a "typical" murder.

Plus, more and more murders are solved these days due to DNA and other evidence tools than what we had even 10 years ago- and that is for all murders, not just cops.

valid question though, and I know many people are critical about this subject, thinking police put more value on their lives than the public. I disagree. When you have a bunch of people who put their lives on the line every single day, they are risking their life to save yours.

another example this one from AMW that was unsolved for about 10 yrs, until advanced technology found a womans fingerprints.

http://www.amw.com/features/feature_story_detail.cfm?id=2832

[Larry]

Recall seeing a 60 Minutes piece years (over a decade?) ago, where basically they revealed that there were thousands of people living in Vegas, (the city they picked for their example), who were wanted in other states.

These people weren't hiding. They were employed, they were using their real IDs, they had driver's licenses with their real addresses on them.

And they were wanted in other states. Most on minor charges, and some on quite major ones. (They based the piece around one particular guy who was wanted for Murder, somewhere in the southeast.)

They explained that the reason for this (and they stressed that it's common everywhere, not just in this one place) is money. It costs a lot of money to extradite somebody. And then you have to prosecute him. Dig up all of the old witnesses. Run the risk that some of them have forgotten things, maybe something has happened to the evidence or something. And if you win, and you convict the guy . . . then you get to spend Big Bucks keeping him in jail.

That a lot of police departments attitude is that as long as the guy stays three time zones away, then he's Somebody Else's Problem.

The story said that this one accused murderer, for example, the LVPD had called the jurisdiction where the warrant was. Told them "Just say the word, and we'll ship him to you". And got told "No, Thanks."

[Larry]

'Course, it also occurs to me that if Arkansas doesn't want 'em, then they'll simply look the other way when they "flee" to Washington. Then AR will list them as parole violators and forget about them.

In fact, if this news story leaks out, that y'all can run to Washington, and it you violate parole, Arkansas won't want you back, then that might even encourage a lot of them to go there.

What's Washington going to do about it? Throw 'em in Washington's jails?

[twa]

'

What's Washington going to do about it? Throw 'em in Washington's jails?

Obviously not.

This is just a attempt to deflect blame...though Arkansas certainly does share in it.

[Larry]

Obviously not.

This is just a attempt to deflect blame...though Arkansas certainly does share in it.

And the reason why Washington should be required to keep a bunch of people in jail, at Washington's expense, because Arkansas sentenced then but doesn't feel like paying for it, is . . . ?

(In fact, does Washington even have the authority to keep somebody in jail because he violated another state's parole?)

[Mickalino]

Plus, more and more murders are solved these days due to DNA and other evidence tools than what we had even 10 years ago- and that is for all murders, not just cops.

I guess that explains why most of the unsolved cases, like the ones you mentioned, were before the technology boom.

Thanks

[sacase]

And the reason why Washington should be required to keep a bunch of people in jail, at Washington's expense, because Arkansas sentenced then but doesn't feel like paying for it, is . . . ?

(In fact, does Washington even have the authority to keep somebody in jail because he violated another state's parole?)

No the reason Washington Should have kept him in jail was he had raped a 5 y/o and had punched a cop in Washington.

They are just trying to deflect the blame. Both states are wrong for various reasons.

[twa]

And the reason why Washington should be required to keep a bunch of people in jail, at Washington's expense, because Arkansas sentenced then but doesn't feel like paying for it, is . . . ?

(In fact, does Washington even have the authority to keep somebody in jail because he violated another state's parole?)

In this case he was facing charges in Washington(as well as Arkansas)

Under the interstate agreement they have authority,which begs the question what they will do with anyone they stop with outstanding warrants from Arkansas in the interim?....Let them go like they did this killer?

[Larry]

No the reason Washington Should have kept him in jail was he had raped a 5 y/o and had punched a cop in Washington.

They are just trying to deflect the blame. Both states are wrong for various reasons.

I haven't heard this. This guy was (alleged? arrested? charged? convicted?) of a crime in Washington, and they let him go, simply because of something Arkansas did?

I have trouble believing this. (Although, I will admit, there are very few things that are so stupid that I won't believe a government could do them.)

[Mickalino]

In this case he was facing charges in Washington(as well as Arkansas)

Really, the guy who gave him clemency in Arkansas should man up, and take some blame for lettin him go. Who was the Governor at the time - Bill Clinton, right ?

[twa]

Huckleberry;),but I think ya know that

Larry he was out on bail for raping a minor and assaulting a officer(in Washington),with his record I find that inexcusable.

[Larry]

Huckleberry;),but I think ya know that

Larry he was out on bail for raping a minor and assaulting a officer(in Washington),with his record I find that inexcusable.

Well, I assume that the judge thought that the bail was reasonable.

(Which, I'll admit, sounds like a long-winded way of saying "Oops. My bad.")

[twa]

A lot of 'My Bads" to go around on this one unfortunately.

[ljs]

Obviously not.

This is just a attempt to deflect blame...though Arkansas certainly does share in it.

No one is trying to deflect blame- The Dept of Corrections is not the ones who set bail- that is on the judge. The DOC for Washington is saying they tried to keep him in jail based on the parole violation for Arkansas.

No the reason Washington Should have kept him in jail was he had raped a 5 y/o and had punched a cop in Washington.

They are just trying to deflect the blame. Both states are wrong for various reasons.

It is typical for people to get bail, I don't agree with it, but true. Clemmons bailed out on the assault/rape charges, by putting up $15k of his own money (10% of the $150k bail). However, they would not have let him out on bail if the warrant was good.

I'm not saying one is more wrong than the other, but when a state blatantly refuses to jail a parole violator-or sends a violent felon to antoehr state, telling them they are not welcome back- especially when they are still on parole- I have issues with that.

If someone is on probation/parole, then the state monitoring them should not be allowed refuse them back to the state-they shouldn't be allowed to leave the state they are paroled with.

[ljs]

here's more specific information on how he was able to bail out. Curious how he could afford to buy 3 houses.

The man who killed four Lakewood police officers was able to bail out of jail less than a week before by taking loans against two of his houses.

The News Tribune of Tacoma says Maurice Clemmons bailed out of the Pierce County Jail a total of three times this year, raising a total of $42,000 in cash or collateral.

The News Tribune says he knew the process because he once worked at a bail bond company.

Washington property records show Clemmons owned three properties in Pierce County, purchased in 2008.

Job records from the state Department of Corrections show Clemmons worked for a recycling company and a plumbing company. He cleaned gutters and formed a pressure-washing company and a hot dog outlet

http://www.kxly.com/news/21796919/detail.html

[Larry]

I do still think Washington has a legit complaint, here. (They may not be able to claim that Arkansas is solely responsible for the guy being loose. But I think they've got a complaint.)

I assume (based on my vast experience watching parole officers in Hollywood movies, which tell me that all parole officers are people who are too crooked to be crooked cops, who get rich by demanding kickbacks from all of the parolees they supervise, every one of which is a wrongly convicted man who's trying to go straight.) that when a parolee says "I want to move to Waskington", that he needs to get permission from his current parole officer (to leave the jurisdiction). And that there needs to be permission from the jurisdiction that he's moving to. That Washington has to agree that "yeah, we'll keep track of him."

That Washington has to assign resources (like a parole officer) to the guy's case. And that parole officer has to spend time keeping track of the guy. Making sure he showed up for work today. Making him piss in a cup occasionally. And whetever else it is that they do.

My question (if I'm Washington) is: Why should I spend the money assigning this guy a parole officer, making him pee in a cup, and all of that mess, if I know that, if he, say, fails his piss test, Arkansas isn't going to take him back?

If Arkansas isn't going to throw the guy in jail for failing a piss test, then why am I spending my money making him take a piss test?

[ljs]

I do still think Washington has a legit complaint, here. (They may not be able to claim that Arkansas is solely responsible for the guy being loose. But I think they've got a complaint.)

I assume (based on my vast experience watching parole officers in Hollywood movies, which tell me that all parole officers are people who are too crooked to be crooked cops, who get rich by demanding kickbacks from all of the parolees they supervise, every one of which is a wrongly convicted man who's trying to go straight.) that when a parolee says "I want to move to Waskington", that he needs to get permission from his current parole officer (to leave the jurisdiction). And that there needs to be permission from the jurisdiction that he's moving to. That Washington has to agree that "yeah, we'll keep track of him."

That Washington has to assign resources (like a parole officer) to the guy's case. And that parole officer has to spend time keeping track of the guy. Making sure he showed up for work today. Making him piss in a cup occasionally. And whetever else it is that they do.

My question (if I'm Washington) is: Why should I spend the money assigning this guy a parole officer, making him pee in a cup, and all of that mess, if I know that, if he, say, fails his piss test, Arkansas isn't going to take him back?

If Arkansas isn't going to throw the guy in jail for failing a piss test, then why am I spending my money making him take a piss test?

First, Ilove your Parole officer description:hysterical:

second, I agree with your assertation on this 100%

[Mickalino]

A lot of 'My Bads" to go around on this one unfortunately.

Technically, aren't they actually saying "His Bads" ?

[twa]

Technically, aren't they actually saying "His Bads" ?

Much as I like kicking Huckleberry ,THIS (the warrant issue) is not his fault from what I know of it...the pardon is another matter.

Perhaps he influenced the refusal to issue a warrant decision ,but I have seen no evidence of it.