Delivery alert

There may be an issue with the delivery of your newspaper. This alert will expire at NaN. Click here for more info.

Recover password

Editorial: At this rate, NM will owe a killer his time served

According to the New Mexico Parole Board website, parole “follows a term of incarceration in the Department of Corrections.” It is set for “offenders reaching the end of a prison term.” And it kicks in when an offender is “released from prison.”

So how is one David Bologh – a guy who did almost nine years in prison for trying to rape a flight attendant, strangling her with a pair of her sweatpants and then stuffing her body into the back seat of her car and driving around with her corpse for four days – earning “day for day” credit off his parole while behind bars, accused in another assault on a woman?

How can someone suspected of violating their parole be working it off at the same time? To put a finer point on it, how can someone be rewarded for violating their parole with even less parole?

Because apparently, the terms “follows” and “end” and “released” don’t equate with the concept of parole (and any credit toward reducing it) coming “after” someone gets out from behind bars.

That’s especially concerning considering the entire purpose of parole, according to the board, is “to provide for public safety and to assist incarcerated persons in their return to productive society.” Considering Bologh’s parole expires Nov. 16, 2016, and there is a case pending from another purported victim, he and the public need every minute of the next 13 months to come close to meeting those objectives.

They do not need to be slashing the one thing that provides for at least limited monitoring and supervision of an admitted killer who stands accused of another assault. State lawmakers should not only take note, they should take action and lock down the laws involving parole.

This editorial first appeared in the Albuquerque Journal. It was written by members of the editorial board and is unsigned as it represents the opinion of the newspaper rather than the writers.