Killer on Parole - Arrested for Instructing BJJ

[Buka]

Jesus, I knew that kid's father, Ralph Hollett. Uechi guy who went into kickboxing, used to fight in New England all the time. Everybody knew Ralph. We were on the same card once, had long conversations with him, nice guy. Don't even know what to think about any of this.

 

[punisher73]

I think a big clue came at the end of that video. It says he "recently coached a student to a world championship". That is probably what brought attention to himself and probably qualified it as a "fighting event" that he wasn't supposed to attend.

In all honesty, why wouldn't you talk with your parole officer and explain what you are doing and find out if it is a violation or not?

I agree that there isn't a whole lot of specific information in the article to really judge.

 

[JR 137]

If he discussed it/was honest with his parole officer during regular check-ins and was given the ok, then it's absurd to revoke his parole. If he hid/didn't disclose it, then he knew he was violating the rules. I've never been through the process, but I'm quite sure a parole officer is supposed to ask what you're doing for a living, how are you spending your free-time, etc.

Regardless of that, the "why now?" argument holds little weight. It doesn't matter how long he's been in violation; only that he is in violation. If I drive 100 mph every day down the road to work for 25 years without a ticket, do I have a leg to stand on with that argument if I get pulled over tomorrow. I agree it should've been addressed sooner, but if the parole officer didn't know, there's no "why now?" argument.

Not to change the subject, but I wonder how someone could have done what the second article said and got parole 8 years later. I don't care how good of an inmate you are, 8 years for that crime isn't enough. Not sure what enough time for that one is, but it's certainly not 8 years IMO.

 

[frank raud]

http://www.bjjee.com/articles/clint...olating-terms-of-probation-by-working-in-bjj/

 

[Headhunter]

Quite honestly never mind the legal stuff but a man like shouldn't be teaching I don't care how reformed he is or how sorry he murdered someone so obviously has issues and teaching isn't an easy job especially in marital arts what if he has some kid who's mouthing off at him he could snap and just kill the kid with his training. I don't know why anyone would /want/ to train with someone like that or how he could even open a school. I mean a killer wouldn't even get a caretakers job at a normal non martial art school so why should a martial art one be any different

 

[Headhunter]

Am also I'm sorry but what the instructor says is total nonsense.

“Jiu-jitsu – scary words right? Until you understand it’s exactly what it is — it’s the opposite of fighting in every way. It’s about solving the violent scenario without the use of violence.”

That's rubbish jiu jitsu is fighting and it is using violence. Are we supposed to believe breaking a guys arm or choking them unconscious isn't violent of course it is.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Quite honestly never mind the legal stuff but a man like shouldn't be teaching I don't care how reformed he is or how sorry he murdered someone so obviously has issues and teaching isn't an easy job especially in marital arts what if he has some kid who's mouthing off at him he could snap and just kill the kid with his training. I don't know why anyone would /want/ to train with someone like that or how he could even open a school. I mean a killer wouldn't even get a caretakers job at a normal non martial art school so why should a martial art one be any different

This is one case where it's very possible he's not the same person he was then. He was 17 when he committed that murder. At that age, most people's "executive center" of the brain is not nearly fully developed (the portion of the brain where long-term consequences are considered, and emotions are managed). In some people, it has barely started. It may be that a few years later he was quite literally different, without regard to anything that may or may not have been useful within the system. This is one of the major problems with how young people often enter the system.

 

[oftheherd1]

Am also I'm sorry but what the instructor says is total nonsense.

“Jiu-jitsu – scary words right? Until you understand it’s exactly what it is — it’s the opposite of fighting in every way. It’s about solving the violent scenario without the use of violence.”

That's rubbish jiu jitsu is fighting and it is using violence. Are we supposed to believe breaking a guys arm or choking them unconscious isn't violent of course it is.

A lot of what you say above and in the post above this one has merit. The recidivism rate in the US is quite high. However, we must always hope for the justice system to get people thinking straight. It is a tricky business; it wouldn't be prudent to allow a paroled pediphile to become a school teacher of young children in the age group his pediphilia prefers. But if, having paid at least a partial debt to society (the parole), and everything over a nine year period appears to show him living correctly (minus the alleged parole violation), why should he be censured. I would also wonder if he has had the same parole officer for the entire nine years.

As to the instructor who said Jiu-jitsu is the opposite of fighting ... We have had at least one thread I remember when it was questioned why MA teachers and GMs might say such things. Many answers were put forth, such as it might be to try and prevent a bad reputation for the dojo, or to lessen the chances of litigation after an incident. Some teachers are reported to suspend students who engage in fighting, regardless of the reason.

And it might be that the instructor's GM had learned that using the MA taught should only be used if there was no other way to avoid conflict, and that was what the teacher passed on. I don't think that statement is unique to any one art, but apparently many teachers and GM state so.

I know my GM let it be known that fighting outside of practice in the dojo, was discouraged. But the nature of the Hapkido I learned, made it very devastating for most opponents when being used in self defense.

 

[oftheherd1]

This is one case where it's very possible he's not the same person he was then. He was 17 when he committed that murder. At that age, most people's "executive center" of the brain is not nearly fully developed (the portion of the brain where long-term consequences are considered, and emotions are managed). In some people, it has barely started. It may be that a few years later he was quite literally different, without regard to anything that may or may not have been useful within the system. This is one of the major problems with how young people often enter the system.

Accepting all the above as true, even so, a death caused in such a manner as described in the articles is a little beyond knocking out some teeth, or breaking an arm or leg. Even killing with a blow to the head. While very wrong, those things could happen even if it wasn't the actual intent of the one inflicting the injuries. The way the injuries and death are reported to have occurred seem to show a desire to at least cause great bodily harm, if not death.

I think he was lucky to have gotten parole as early as he did. But I say that knowing nothing about usual sentencing guidelines in the Canadian justice system.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Accepting all the above as true, even so, a death caused in such a manner as described in the articles is a little beyond knocking out some teeth, or breaking an arm or leg. Even killing with a blow to the head. While very wrong, those things could happen even if it wasn't the actual intent of the one inflicting the injuries. The way the injuries and death are reported to have occurred seem to show a desire to at least cause great bodily harm, if not death.

I think he was lucky to have gotten parole as early as he did. But I say that knowing nothing about usual sentencing guidelines in the Canadian justice system.

The nature of the crime doesn't change the possibility that he literally wasn't making decisions with an adult brain. The juvenile brain is driven by baser instincts, so we're not talking about intent or a lack thereof - we're talking about reasoning or a lack thereof. (This why so often teenagers, when asked why they did something, reply "I don't know". You're asking their cognitive brain a question about a decision it may not have been involved in.) If, in fact, the murder occurred before the executive center was reasonably developed, then he may have a very different brain than he had that day. It doesn't lessen the severity of the crime, but at some point we must ask what the purpose of any justice system is. Punishment (which feels "right", but has very little positive effect on behavior), or rehabilitation?

 

[oftheherd1]

The nature of the crime doesn't change the possibility that he literally wasn't making decisions with an adult brain. The juvenile brain is driven by baser instincts, so we're not talking about intent or a lack thereof - we're talking about reasoning or a lack thereof. (This why so often teenagers, when asked why they did something, reply "I don't know". You're asking their cognitive brain a question about a decision it may not have been involved in.) If, in fact, the murder occurred before the executive center was reasonably developed, then he may have a very different brain than he had that day. It doesn't lessen the severity of the crime, but at some point we must ask what the purpose of any justice system is. Punishment (which feels "right", but has very little positive effect on behavior), or rehabilitation?

It sounds like every young offender's lawyer's dream defense.

Rehabilitation should be the goal, no doubt. But I don't think we are there yet. By the time most offenders have been dancing on the line or way over it for much of their lives, how do you accomplish rehabilitation? How do you get into their minds and convince them to think a different way or want to choose a different path in life?

If you don't know, that is the only way. The person in jail must come to the conclusion that a life of crime is not what they want. You have a hard time from outside their brain, convincing them until they make the decision themselves. Once they do that, you can help them. Until they do, they will not change.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It sounds like every young offender's lawyer's dream defense.

Rehabilitation should be the goal, no doubt. But I don't think we are there yet. By the time most offenders have been dancing on the line or way over it for much of their lives, how do you accomplish rehabilitation? How do you get into their minds and convince them to think a different way or want to choose a different path in life?

If you don't know, that is the only way. The person in jail must come to the conclusion that a life of crime is not what they want. You have a hard time from outside their brain, c until they make the decision themselves. Once they do that, you can help them. Until they do, they will not change.

The current system of incarceration is actually a part of the problem, not part of the solution. It puts first-time offenders in an environment where they are surrounded by life-long offenders. Part of human psychology is that we tend to normalize the attitudes of those we are around the most, so these first-time offenders start to see the attitudes of the folks they are incarcerated with as "normal". Then society makes it difficult to get a job and get back to being productive afterward, which reinforces some of the persecution mentality that fosters recidivism. The current system tries to do what you said: "convincing them" through punishment ("hard time" is meant to be a deterrent).

Note that I'm not saying we shouldn't have incarceration. I'm just saying it's proven to be a pretty weak deterrent. It needs a change. Small-scale social experiments have shown remarkable results, even with violent offenders. Giving them jobs of trust, teaching them their place in a healthy social order, teaching them skills - these are the things that tend to reduce recidivism. Yet, when programs are suggested for the prison system, people don't want to pay for good education within the prisons, nor for improved conditions, because "they don't deserve that - they should suffer for what they did." It sounds right to most of us, but it is counter-productive for society. It just leads us to spend more money for future incarcerations, not to mention the other indirect costs (higher cost of insurance, more police needed, etc.).

It's a problem that doesn't have an easy answer, but we still need to start making the change. The US is the clear leader in this problem (not in the solution, in the problem, itself), so probably the place where change will bring the most benefit.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This is one case where it's very possible he's not the same person he was then. He was 17 when he committed that murder. At that age, most people's "executive center" of the brain is not nearly fully developed (the portion of the brain where long-term consequences are considered, and emotions are managed). In some people, it has barely started. It may be that a few years later he was quite literally different, without regard to anything that may or may not have been useful within the system. This is one of the major problems with how young people often enter the system.

@Headhunter - care to explain what part of this statement about human developmental psychology you don't agree with?

 

[oftheherd1]

The current system of incarceration is actually a part of the problem, not part of the solution. It puts first-time offenders in an environment where they are surrounded by life-long offenders. Part of human psychology is that we tend to normalize the attitudes of those we are around the most, so these first-time offenders start to see the attitudes of the folks they are incarcerated with as "normal". Then society makes it difficult to get a job and get back to being productive afterward, which reinforces some of the persecution mentality that fosters recidivism. The current system tries to do what you said: "convincing them" through punishment ("hard time" is meant to be a deterrent).

Note that I'm not saying we shouldn't have incarceration. I'm just saying it's proven to be a pretty weak deterrent. It needs a change. Small-scale social experiments have shown remarkable results, even with violent offenders. Giving them jobs of trust, teaching them their place in a healthy social order, teaching them skills - these are the things that tend to reduce recidivism. Yet, when programs are suggested for the prison system, people don't want to pay for good education within the prisons, nor for improved conditions, because "they don't deserve that - they should suffer for what they did." It sounds right to most of us, but it is counter-productive for society. It just leads us to spend more money for future incarcerations, not to mention the other indirect costs (higher cost of insurance, more police needed, etc.).

It's a problem that doesn't have an easy answer, but we still need to start making the change. The US is the clear leader in this problem (not in the solution, in the problem, itself), so probably the place where change will bring the most benefit.

Bolded - I would say most have already normalized their attitudes as to their behavioral norms before they were caught and put in prisons. Society does indeed tend to make it difficult for those released from prisons to get good jobs and move up in society. Who do you think has the most blame, society or the offenders, especially considering the recidivism, and which was first, the chicken or the egg?

Underlined - Yes, it seems to have been. But this is not a new problem. I am not aware of the small-scale experiments you have mentioned. I would hope they work. How long have they shown it takes to turn a felon's attitude around to wanting to be a productive member of society? Are they also taught that they don't get an automatic pass to trusted status in society, that they have to work for it, often for a long time, as have those who haven't offended and gone to prison?

Bolded and underlined - I believe many prisons do have opportunity for education and learning skills. Some may not due to overcrowding. But what do prisoners do with that education and those skills when they are released? They cannot expect a free ride into the upper classes of society. Even if you can show studies supporting education and skill teaching, what was done to society to make them happily accepting? That has to be part of the solution don't you think? How was it done?

In all this, I don't mean to sound totally pessimistic and unsupportive of people being able to overcome previous bad decisions, and return to society as happy and productive citizens. In one way, the ideal would be to stop sentencing people to set terms of imprisonment, but rather until rehabilitation. But that idea rather scares me. Who gets to decide when someone has been rehabilitated? Are errors in the decision allowed for? Again, we aren't there yet, and is it even a defensible solution?

I do actually agree that those sent to prisons who do want to change their life and stop living a life of crime, have an uphill battle considering those they are forced to live amongst, and the lack of guard control in many prisons.

That to me would be the first step in giving that type of person a chance. Inmate control of events inside a prison should be prevented. Attempts by prisoners to take any small amount of control should be punished.

I don't know all the good solutions to prison reform, but that seems to be the best place to start. Prisoners have to know that there are societal norms, controlled by society at large, not a prison society. They must be required to follow those norms, including not being allowed to exploit guards, whether by willingness of the guards, or coercion of the guards.

Won't cure all the problems, but I think it would be a good start.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Bolded - I would say most have already normalized their attitudes as to their behavioral norms before they were caught and put in prisons. Society does indeed tend to make it difficult for those released from prisons to get good jobs and move up in society. Who do you think has the most blame, society or the offenders, especially considering the recidivism, and which was first, the chicken or the egg?

I don't think there's a real chicken-and-egg issue here, since the crime always precedes incarceration (in theory, and nearly always in practice). The issue is that the average of attitudes in prison is very different from the average attitudes most are exposed to beforehand. In some cases, people grow up surrounded by people who have been in prison, so grow up around a different average, part of which is caused by the prison environment (perhaps the beginnings of a chicken-and-egg problem, at that point).

Underlined

- Yes, it seems to have been. But this is not a new problem. I am not aware of the small-scale experiments you have mentioned. I would hope they work. How long have they shown it takes to turn a felon's attitude around to wanting to be a productive member of society? Are they also taught that they don't get an automatic pass to trusted status in society, that they have to work for it, often for a long time, as have those who haven't offended and gone to prison?

I think this is one of the ones I heard about: Delancey Street Foundation - About Us - How We Work. They start people with tiny responsibilities on day one (if this is the one I remember, they start out having to put silverware on the table, which they are taught to do properly by a more experienced participant), and the whole focus is on helping them develop a sense of social responsibility and community. As soon as a new person comes in, the next newest person is responsible for helping them get started (including teaching them how to set the silverware). They run moving companies and such, entirely staffed by people most of us wouldn't hire. At the last report I heard, they'd never had so much as a claim of petty theft when moving someone's home.

Bolded and underlined

- I believe many prisons do have opportunity for education and learning skills. Some may not due to overcrowding. But what do prisoners do with that education and those skills when they are released? They cannot expect a free ride into the upper classes of society. Even if you can show studies supporting education and skill teaching, what was done to society to make them happily accepting? That has to be part of the solution don't you think? How was it done?

There is some education, but it's a mirror of the education people get outside prison. They have a different need. They don't just need skills, they need to change their entire social attitude. That's what makes the programs work. They are taught a different way to build their self-respect. Teaching them to use a computer (usually on outdated equipment) is less valuable than helping reform their attitudes. And, yes, there has to be something to help the wider community accept them. We've all heard stories of people who are valued by their community, in spite of their criminal past, because they do a lot of good (helping kids, etc.). This should be one of the aims of every rehabilitation program. Unfortunately, most people won't want to give them a chance to prove themselves until they prove themselves - a full-on Catch 22.

In all this, I don't mean to sound totally pessimistic and unsupportive of people being able to overcome previous bad decisions, and return to society as happy and productive citizens. In one way, the ideal would be to stop sentencing people to set terms of imprisonment, but rather until rehabilitation. But that idea rather scares me. Who gets to decide when someone has been rehabilitated? Are errors in the decision allowed for? Again, we aren't there yet, and is it even a defensible solution?

This is a major stumbling block, indeed. It's the same issue we have with declaring someone "criminally insane". At regular intervals, someone has to evaluate them and decide if they are safe for society, and we don't really have a good way yet to measure that. With convicts, it may be a bit clearer, if we could figure out how to run large-scale programs like the small-scale ones in effect now. If they get through that program (Delancey Street is at least 2 years), then they've learned new behaviors, which almost certainly means new attitudes (hard to fake it 24 hours a day for years on end).

Of course, the ideal would be if we could identify where this is needed, and provide this kind of training before people get into deep trouble. If the repeat petty thief is rehabilitated before they commit a felony, society is more accepting.

I do actually agree that those sent to prisons who do want to change their life and stop living a life of crime, have an uphill battle considering those they are forced to live amongst, and the lack of guard control in many prisons.

That to me would be the first step in giving that type of person a chance. Inmate control of events inside a prison should be prevented. Attempts by prisoners to take any small amount of control should be punished.

I don't know all the good solutions to prison reform, but that seems to be the best place to start. Prisoners have to know that there are societal norms, controlled by society at large, not a prison society. They must be required to follow those norms, including not being allowed to exploit guards, whether by willingness of the guards, or coercion of the guards.

Won't cure all the problems, but I think it would be a good start.

It would be a start, at least.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Killer on parole, he wants to teach your kids to roll...