This document summarizes a case where a university professor who bludgeoned his wife to death received a lenient plea deal of 5-10 years for voluntary manslaughter. After serving the minimum 5 years, the parole board initially denied his release but approved it a year later. However, after public outrage from the victim's family and officials involved in the case, the board reversed its decision to approve parole. The author argues this case highlights the unequal treatment and hypocrisy that can exist in the criminal justice system, where well-educated individuals may receive more lenient treatment than less privileged defendants. Officials like the prosecutor and judge who approved the original plea deal were among those expressing shock at the potential parole.

1. Graterfriends ― A Publication of The Pennsylvania Prison Society ― March 2013
16
The opinions expressed are of the authors and not necessarily those of Graterfriends or The Pennsylvania Prison Society.
THE LAST WORD
A Question of Equal Justice
by William M. DiMascio
Executive Director, The Pennsylvania Prison Society
First Class postage is required to re-mail
245 North Broad Street
Suite 300
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
March 2013
(see Equal Justice, continued on page 15)
NON-PROFIT
ORGANIZATION
U.S. POSTAGE PAID
CLAYSBURG, PA
PERMIT NO. 84
What a shock it must be to learn that the criminal jus-
tice system doesn’t always treat everyone as equals un-
der the law! How naïve must we be to think that a crimi-
nal court would mete out similar punishments to a well-
educated member of the middle class and countless less
culpable men and women from disadvantaged social and
economic backgrounds!
In a nation that proclaims we the people are all equal
under the law we get frequent reminders of just how unfair
the system is. In a state where thousands of men and wom-
en are serving life in prison without the possibility of pa-
role release because of the wretched felony homicide law,
this inequity stands out like frost on a February morning.
And, what may be the most regrettable aspect of it all
is that meaningful improvements rarely follow countless
reminders of systemic flaws. Instead we get scapegoating
and finger pointing.
Here’s what happened in a 2008 case:
 A middle aged university professor bludgeoned his
wife to death during the heat of an argument. The
trial judge called it the “most savage act I have ever
encountered” during almost 40 years as a prosecutor
and a judge.
 The otherwise “tough on crime” district attorney and
the judge agreed to a plea arrangement with the
professor pleading guilty to voluntary manslaughter
in exchange for a 5- to 10-year sentence. In other
words, as almost everyone involved in Pennsylva-
nia’s criminal justice system knows, the killer would
be eligible for parole release after serving 5 years.
 The state Parole Board refused to release him when
he first became eligible after serving his minimum
sentence. The Parole Board uses a variety of ele-
ments in weighing its decisions, including in this
case the prisoner’s record of good behavior, letters of
recommendation and other factors that indicated
that he would not be a threat to public safety. In this
case the board said he was rejected because of mis-
conducts, a lack of remorse for the crime and a nega-
tive recommendation from the DA.
 A year after the initial rejection, the board approved
his parole release, citing a number of factors includ-
ing completion of prescribed programs, positive in-
stitutional behavior, acceptance of responsibility for
the crime and other factors. There was no mention of
“I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!”
—Claude Rains as the French Police Captain Renault in the 1942 film classic, Casablanca

2. Graterfriends ― A Publication of The Pennsylvania Prison Society ― March 2013
The opinions expressed are of the authors and not necessarily those of Graterfriends or The Pennsylvania Prison Society.
15
Better Way, continued from page 2
New York City Police Department has found it.
More and focused policing has been perhaps the single,
most effective means to reducing crime in NYC. So-called
‘hot-spot’ policing involves the identification of impact
zones of high crime, and then directing increased police
presence at frequent but unpredictable intervals to those
areas. Other methods include improved street lighting,
the fencing of vacant lots, arresting people for minor vio-
lations, and more frequent stop-and-frisks. Critics held
that criminals would just relocate from these targeted
areas, but that has not proven to be the case. Criminolo-
gists from around the world cite the fact that “crime does
not move as easily as we thought it did.”
Some may ask how locking people up for minor viola-
tions reduces crime, but study after study demonstrates
that while this strategy may raise the jail population
initially, the overall effect is that those arrested stay in
jail for shorter periods, and more serious crime rates
decline as a result.
The practice of stop-and-frisk has been vehemently
contested by critics who cite its unfair focus on minori-
ties, but Mr. Tierney notes that it is also minorities who
are most affected by crimes perpetuated by those who
are temporarily detained in this manner, and often
found to have illegal guns and drugs. NYC’s Mayor
Bloomberg notes that if done “properly and politely,”
stop-and-frisk does far more good than harm in keeping
citizens safe.
Yes, there are other critics to what NYC has achieved.
And that opposition is meaningfully expressed by Mr.
Tierney when he notes that “corrections budgets are
zealously defended in state capitals by prison adminis-
trators, unions, and legislators.” This is especially true
in Pennsylvania, where prisons are big business.
But, whatever the opposition, few would disagree that
mass incarceration is not an answer to crime. There are
other, more effective means of achieving safety on our
streets as NYC has demonstrated. We would be wise to
take heed.
negative recommendations from the judge, prosecu-
tor or victim representative.
 Then, the victim’s family, with the aid of a state leg-
islator, weighed in with public expressions of out-
rage. The Board reversed its decision, setting itself
up for second guessing by every victim that thinks
its perpetrator is being treated too lightly. Promi-
nent among the chorus of public figures who were
“shocked” by the Board’s initial determination to
approve parole were the very judge and DA who ap-
proved the sentence!
The prosecutor explained that this brutal killing was
committed in “hot blood” as opposed to “cold blood” –
thus it amounted to manslaughter rather than murder.
In other words, it was an act committed during a blind
rage when the killer’s emotions overtook his ability to
exercise reason and judgment.
So where does that leave the hundreds of juvenile lifers
whose actions were committed when they lacked the
neurological competency to exercise reason and judg-
ment or to control their emotions? But that of course is a
question for the legislature, not the courts or the prisons
or Parole Board.
Similarly, at issue in this case was the sentence agreed
to by the prosecutor and the judge, and not so much
about the parole process. The Parole Board has always
been the whipping boy for the criminal justice system,
however. It is far easier to criticize and second-guess
their decisions than it is to deal with the underlying is-
sues that invariably surface surrounded by the hypocrisy
that has marked this case. The last big challenge result-
ed in the state declaring a moratorium on parole which
caused the prison population to spike out of control.
The board follows a very detailed process leading up to
its decision making. It includes a comprehensive look at
the crime and character of the individual, as well as the
input from everyone involved: namely the victim or his
or her family, the judge, prosecutor, DOC, etc. And
there’s more, including proscriptive programming and a
home plan. The decision makers also are experienced at
what they do and know how to interpret these factors.
For the most part, we think they fail by being too
tough, too often!
But the grandstanding and second guessing that goes
on in cases like this one do no good for anyone, least of
all for the criminal justice system in this state.
Equal Justice, continued from page 16
what our interests and passions are, or what we want to
do with our lives. Your true passion won’t be motivated
by money alone, but by something more rewarding, like
self-fulfillment and a sense of accomplishment. When we
have a job or career, we develop a sense of purpose and
belonging. Then we have a stake in society, and we will
value the rules of society — and live a happy and more
fulfilling life.
Defeating Recidivism, continued from page 3
Maybe the solution to recidivism could begin with a
program that tests the skills and interests of an individ-
ual, and matches them with potential jobs, allowing that
individual to get a head start in pursuing a career based
on personal skills and interests, rather than on a mis-
guided idea of what they think would make them happy
and successful.