After watching news coverage around Chikei Rick Chow’s acquittal from murder charges, after wrongfully shooting 14-year-old Cyrus Carmack-Belton, I am disheartened by the antonym within Parole Board malpractice. In films that depict the plight of black males in America within our Criminal Justice System, like The Kalief Browder Story and When They See Us, how are there still consistent failures within the correctional facility release process, that only result in wrongful imprisonment and unjust release. Korey Wise, from the exonerated five, was repeatedly denied parole because he maintained his innocence. In the New York state prison system, inmates are generally expected to admit guilt and show remorse in front of the parole board to be granted early release. A Mandatory Remorse statement is required by inmates to acknowledge responsibility for their actions and participate in rehabilitation programs while admitting guilt. Wise adamantly refused to do this. The board reported inconsistencies in statements during his parole hearings, he struggled to walk the line between stating his innocence and showing remorse for simply being at the scene. His rambling answers ultimately hurt his chances. The aftermath of not accepting a plea deal or admit to the crime, Wise ultimately served nearly 13 years in adult prison. After losing multiple hearings and repeatedly facing denial because he wouldn’t admit guilt, Wise stopped attending his parole hearings entirely. The constitution promotes Habeas Corpus as a right to a judge’s review and prohibits indefinite imprisonment. The constitution requires a trial to declare guilt and establish punishment. The Bill of Rights: Fifth Amendment requires a right to due process and protection against self-incrimination.The Sixth Amendment requires a right to a speedy, public, and fair trial “to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor”. The Eighth Amendment requires the right to protection against excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishments… (and generations of codifications by all levels of the judicial branch expand on these inalienable rights. If all of this is true, then how can a privatized system – which is only an extension of our government – legally be allowed to review if an inmate can be released? FACT: In order to proceed with release, Parole boards heavily favor inmates who take responsibility for their crimes. Owning up to the offense demonstrates that the individual understands the magnitude of their actions and “supposed lack of insight or remorse, or failure to take responsibility for the commitment offense, or disciplinary violations – or any combination of these as evidence of present dangerousness” (Hammond, 2016). [there are inconsistent statutes across the nation, so this was quoted from a google search] Texas is an example of a median, harsh punishment, red state: Eligibility Requirements: Time Served: Most inmates are eligible for parole after serving 1/4th of their sentence, Parole Guidelines Score: The Board uses a matrix that merges ‘Risk Assessment’ (likelihood of reoffending) and ‘Offense Severity’. The Parole Board Procedures: Automatic Review: The review process begins automatically 6 months before an inmate’s initial eligibility date (or 4 months before subsequent reviews), Voting Panels: Files are reviewed by a 3-member panel (usually 1 board member and 2 parole commissioners), Victim Involvement: Victims have the right to request interviews with the lead panel voter and can submit confidential protest letters. Despite inconsistencies, most prisons require inmates to provide a.) A sworn statement of guilt admitting to the crime to establish conviction and secure penalties, frequently resulting in a reduced sentence or b.) A remorse statement (allocution): it is unsworn and occurs post-conviction; it serves to humanize the defendant and request leniency, but it does not determine guilt. There are often further processes without the inmate nor their attorney present. Again, Article I and Article III of the constitution in addition to the explicit codification in the Bill of Rights establish parole boards are not only illegal, but proof of generationally systemic complex unconstitutional behaviors. How then, when up for parole as ruled by a judge, not limiting a jury’s verdict of guilt, attorneys specialized-laymen arguments backed by the evidence, does a “board” get the deciding vote? If our judicial branch distributes authority to judges, then only a judge can rule guilt and establish appropriate punishment. If a judge’s ruling -the final confirmation of all criminal court trial proceedings- establishes a minimum time required of an inmate until ‘Sentence Termination Release’, then why don’t we argue to reform components of government sanctioned institutions that are in contempt of court through the ability to challenge an inmate’s fate? What I’m trying to argue is that an inmate is only required to respond to a judge’s authority. Yes, our government’s actions are based upon actions of the court that are handed down to bureaus — however, allowing this to impede on an American’s right to parole, set by a constitutional authority, is illegal. No matter how a parole board’s reviews process around court ruling, a high authority declared termination of sentence at a minimum and maximum. Therefore, a board has no constitutional authority to deny an inmate release. The requirement for all actions in deciding the fate of an inmate must abide by the rights under the constitution, therefore Bill of Rights, and all relevant Statutory Laws. If there must be a review or Parole Trial, it must be reviewed by a jury of their peers, original attorneys (in the event that this is appealed some type of designated survivor order), and without appeal, a randomly assigned impartial judge. Acknowledgement: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author, not necessarily Our National Conversation as a whole. BibliographyHammond, D. (2019, October 5). CDCR parole suitability factors. Criminal Defense Heroes P.C. California DUI Defense. https://www.donhammondlaw.com/blog/post-conviction-relief-cdcr-parole-suitability-article/
By Raven W. M.
The countdown is on: the FIFA World Cup is about to begin in the United States, Canada, and Mexico, promising a spectacle watched by billions worldwide. Yet even with kickoff imminent and millions set to travel across North America, the excitement feels strangely distant for many Americans. This is surprising, considering that the United States will host the majority of matches, including the tournament’s biggest moments. Cities have spent years preparing. Ticket sales are underway. Organizers expect massive crowds. Yet outside of dedicated soccer circles, the buildup has been remarkably subdued. So why does it feel like the World Cup is not coming? Is soccer still struggling to break into the American mainstream, or is the tournament competing for attention in a country already saturated with sports, politics, entertainment and endless streams of other online content? As the countdown continues, the answer may reveal as much about modern America as it does about soccer itself. For an event expected to attract billions of viewers worldwide, the World Cup’s approach has felt surprisingly quiet in many parts of the United States. In previous host countries, preparations for the tournament were often impossible to ignore. Streets full of banners and flags, businesses embracing national teams and conversations about the competition began months before the opening match. Yet many Americans right now likely go about their daily lives without realizing the World Cup is rapidly approaching. This perception is not limited to casual observers. Across social media and in several host cities, some fans have expressed surprise at the lack of visible excitement for the tournament. Stadium renovations are complete. Local organizers continue preparing for large crowds. But many outward signs typically associated with a major international event remain difficult to find. Part of the explanation may be cultural. Unlike much of Europe and Latin America, soccer does not dominate the sporting landscape in the United States. Instead, the country divides its attention among football, basketball, baseball and hockey. Countless other forms of entertainment also compete. As a result, even the world’s most popular sporting event must fight for attention in a crowded marketplace. Another possible explanation for the lack of visible excitement is cost. While the World Cup remains one of the most anticipated sporting events, attending in person has become increasingly expensive. Between match tickets, airfare, hotels and transportation, the total cost for attending can quickly climb beyond what many fans are willing or able to spend. This does not mean interest in the tournament is low. In fact, demand for tickets remains strong. However, when participation feels financially out of reach, excitement may become concentrated among dedicated supporters. It does not easily spread to the broader public. If fewer people can realistically imagine themselves attending a match, the buildup may feel more distant. The event itself draws closer, but excitement stays contained. The apparent lack of excitement does not necessarily mean Americans are uninterested in the World Cup. Instead, it may reflect how people consume sports and media today. Unlike previous generations, where major events were experienced through a handful of television networks and newspapers, audiences are now spread across multiple social media sites; feeds may be filled with World Cup content, while also filled with politics, entertainment, or entirely different sports. As a result, enthusiasm for the tournament may be more fragmented than absent. There is no single national conversation. Excitement often pools within specific fan communities. For outsiders, it is less visible. Of course, the true test of the World Cup’s impact may not come before the opening match, but after it. Once stadiums begin to fill, international supporters arrive, and matches dominate headlines around the globe, the atmosphere could change dramatically. Americans who currently feel disconnected from the tournament may find it difficult to ignore once the world’s attention turns toward their own cities. The World Cup is also arriving during a particularly busy moment in American public life. Political debates, economic concerns and an increasingly fragmented media environment compete for the public’s attention every day. In a country where national conversations are increasingly rare, perhaps the question is not why the World Cup has struggled to break through, but whether any event can still capture the nation’s attention.
By Alan Jimenez
The murder of Henry Nowak, accompanied by the heinous response of the police officers at the scene, has received little attention from media outlets and left-wing activists in the past week, despite being a horrific instance of actual police brutality. Nowak, an 18 year old Polish man living in the United Kingdom, was brutally stabbed with a dagger by an older Sikh Indian man in Southampton on December 3rd, 2025. The attacker’s brother then called the police to falsely report Nowak had racially abused him, and when the police showed up, they were quick to take the side of the perpetrator. Even when Nowak showed them his wounds, the police refused to believe that he had been stabbed and kept him handcuffed; his death occurred moments later. The details of the stabber’s sentencing was completed and made public in May, but the response from the British government has been notably mild in comparison to its reaction to the murder of George Floyd. This is despite the fact that Floyd’s murder occurred thousands of miles away in Minnesota and he had multiple criminal convictions before May 2020, in contrast to Nowak, who lived a life of only good behavior. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has insisted that Nowak’s murder should not be exploited for political gain, while six years ago, weaponized Floyd’s murder in order to villanize Trump and American conservatives. Starmer’s Deputy Prime Minister, David Lammy, also fired back at Vice President J.D. Vance’s assertion that Nowak’s murder should be linked to mass migration. Elites in academia constantly assert that there is widespread white privilege and systemic racism against non-whites in Western countries, but Nowak’s murder proves otherwise. This is nowhere close to the first time that the United Kingdom has been more concerned about being labelled as racist for tackling non-White criminals than protecting its innocent civilians, nor is it the last. The murderer’s Indian family members, such as his father and aforementioned brother, have been arrested for illegal possession of a wide range of weapons, and his mother is currently awaiting sentencing for providing the knife used to slaughter Nowak. Much of the other crime amongst immigrant communities in the United Kingdom have also been horrifically ignored or covered up for years. The Pakistani grooming gangs, that caused the mass rape of many young British women in the 21st century have been enabled by the Labour Party’s Mayor Andy Burnham and other councils. Analyses repeatedly show that migrants from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia are astronomically more likely to commit violent crimes than native Brits, yet the British government refuses to halt immigration from those countries. And given the hordes of illegal migrants, mainly young and fighting-aged men, flooding into Britain each week from across the English channel with the goal of claiming asylum, these crises will only get worse. Acknowledgement: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author, not necessarily Our National Conversation as a whole
By Edward Kim
Follow Us