[Parole Revocation]
Thom Marshall, "Attending a parole revocation hearing," Houston Chronicle, April 21, 2000, Sec. A, page 33.

Mrs. Trejo called the police out of anger with her husband. When they responded to her family disturbance call, they saw no evidence of abuse. Although Mr. Trejo was taken into custody, Mrs. Trejo did not press charges. The judge found Trejo not guilty and ordered the charges expunged. For anyone else, this would mean that "it never happened." Mario Trejo isn't "anyone else" though. He had been out of prison on parole for three years when this happened. As a result of the disturbance call, he may go back to prison despite the not guilty verdict.

Parole officers do not have to abide by or even take into consideration a judge's decision when they consider revoking parole. If an officer makes a mistake, and an innocent man goes back to jail, people in general don't care. If the man goes free and commits a violent crime or becomes a high-profile case, the hearing officer can forget about ever being appointed to the parole board.

• Should parolees be expected to stay so far away from potential trouble that even a complaint can send them back to prison, whether or not they are found guilty? Why or why not?
• Should Mario Trejo be returned to prison?