I believe that members of the legislature, and the citizens of Florida, would like to know that Florida's "existing" parole system, which is so badly broken, causes the State of Florida to waste in excess of $80,000,000,000 each and every year by needlessly incarcerating/warehousing more than 4,000 parole-eligible inmates (with only about 20 actually being released annually).

Indeed, these parole-eligible inmates:

> successfully completed all of their minimum mandatory terms,

> served between twenty-five to forty years (or more),

> demonstrated that they are worthy for release on parole, and

> present a low risk of recidivism.

Of course, the actual cost to incarcerate/warehouse these parole-eligible inmates is probably around $100,000.00 per year and constantly increasing because they are developing more and more health problems as they rapidly age after serving decades in a stressful correctional environment.

 
All of these problems, as briefly noted above, are the direct result of Florida's "existing" parole system being so badly broken, which the Legislature can easily verify by simply reviewing some public records.

 

For example, even a cursory review of the official actions and orders of the Florida Commission on Offender Review (formerly the Florida Parole Commission) establishing presumptive parole release dates ("PPRDs") for inmates, as indexed and published by the Division of Administrative Hearings on its website, www.doah.state.fl.us will confirms that:

 

> the so-called "objective" parole guidelines developed by the Commission are so undisciplined and thoroughly infected with the subjectivity of individuals that the Commission's very own trained professionals (its commission investigators/hearing officers), see Fla. Admin. Code R. 23-21.002(34), can rarely, if ever, make a recommendation that commissioners will affirm without change,

> unless an inmate has a capital (level 6) offense and a salient factor score total falling in the fourth or fifth category (8 to 11 pointsor recidivist criminal factor), see Fla. Admin. Code R. 23-21.009(5)-(6), the Commission exercises no discretion whatsoever, instead following its blanket, sub rosa policy of setting his or her time at the very top of the appropriate matrix time range for adults and youthful offenders without any consideration for individual circumstances of the case,

> the Commission uses its undisciplined system of subjective decision-making (rather than "objective" parole guidelines) to freely pick and choose which aggravating factors to apply (or to not apply), even in evidently identical cases,

 

> the Commission uses its undisciplined system of subjective decision-making (rather than "objective" parole guidelines) to arbitrarily and capriciously assign months to aggravating factors "as it sees fit," treating evidently identical cases dissimilarly,

 

> the Commission's rendering of decisions "above" the appropriate matrix time range for adults and youthful offenders is the "norm" (one-hundred percent (100%) of the time unless the inmate has a capital (level 6) offense and a salient factor score total falling in the fourth or fifth category (8 to 11 points or recidivist criminal factor), not the "exception,"

 

> the Commission has a blanket, sub rosa policy against applying any mitigating factors (zero percent (0%) of the time) when establishing inmates' PPRDs,

 

> the Commission uses its undisciplined system of subjective decision-making (rather than "objective" parole guidelines) to arbitrarily and capriciously extend inmates' next interview dates by five to seven years, and

 

> the Commission uses its undisciplined system of subjective decision-making (rather than "objective" parole guidelines) to arbitrarily and capriciously refer inmates to self-betterment/reentry programs,

which is certainly not what the Legislature intended when it enacted the Objective Parole Guidelines Act of 1978 (the "OPGA of 1978"), see ch. 78-417, Laws of Florida (1978) ch. 947, Fla. Stat. (1978 Supp.).

 

In fact, the Supreme Court of Florida has carefully examined Florida's "existing" parole system and unremarkably found that a life sentence "with" the possibility of parole, based on the way the Commission operates it under chapter 947, Florida Statutes, actually resembles a life sentence "without" the possibility of parole that is not proportionate to the offense or the offender, regardless whether they were an adult or juvenile at the time of their crime. See Atwell v. State, 197 So. 3d 1040, 1048 (Fla. 2016).

 

More than four decades ago, the House of Representatives, faced with far less egregious facts and circumstances, launched an investigation into the Commission's alleged abuse of discretion in granting parole and then completed a legislative oversight report, see House of Representatives Committee on Corrections, "Oversight Report: The Florida Parole and Probation Commission," May 1978, which led to the Legislature's enactment of remedial legislation (i.e., the OPGA of 1978), see ch. 78-417, Laws of Florida (1978) ch. 947, Fla. Stat. (1978 Supp.).

 

Thus, I believe that the Legislature, now squarely confronted with these far more egregious facts and circumstances, should:

 

> Launch an investigation into the Commission's operations and actions, especially whether they violate both the letter and spirit of the OPGA of 1978 and cause the State of Florida to waste anywhere between $80,000,000,000 and $100,000,000,000 of precious taxpayer dollars each and every year,

> Prepare a much-needed legislative oversight report on the Commission's operations and actions (it has been more than forty years since the last one was prepared), and

 

> Enact remedial legislation reforming Florida's "existing" parole system, which is so badly broken in so different many ways, perhaps calling it the "Parole Reform Act of 2020."