T he Hawaii Paroling Authority (HPA) does not speak for the Department of Public Safety on this or any other issue, but nonetheless would like to provide unbiased clarity regarding misleading and inflammatory comments made in the guest commentary, "Prisoner bill would fix previous abuse" (Island Voices, Star-Advertiser, April 22).

The HPA appreciates the comments and clear concerns of the authors of the article in question. Unfortunately, they are all off-base, and their position in this matter is flawed, and in direct contravention to the law.

As I understand it, in a large number of cases, the court failed to spell out in the judgments issued when offenders were convicted and sentenced for separate offenses on different dates, that the terms of imprisonment are to run concurrently (at the same time).

In the absence of this crucial information omitted by the Judiciary, the DPS followed the law. Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Section §706-668.5 did clearly state that "multiple terms of imprisonment imposed at different times run consecutively unless the court orders that the terms run concurrently."

Since the DPS receives the court judgments and does not receive and/or routinely have access to court transcripts, the DPS appropriately applied the law as written, and does not have the luxury of "applying a previous practice" as stated by the authors.

It is interesting to note that of the nine authors of the article in question, eight are current or former practicing attorneys, who state that the DPS should have continued to flatly ignore the law, and utilize an inherently flawed previous practice. As officers of the court, they are sworn to uphold the law, which they now seem ready to abandon.

It is also interesting to note that some of the authors of the article will undoubtedly represent offenders in civil actions against the state in state or federal court if Senate Bill 106, SD1, HD1, CD1 were to become law with retroactive application.

If the court intended for offenders to serve their sentences concurrently, then it should have been spelled out in the judgments issued.

At present, when the DPS applies the provisions of the law to those offenders that qualify and if he or she disagrees, the offender has the right to seek clarification from the court regarding its intent with respect to the service of their sentences.

In such cases, the Judiciary should implement an expedited review process to correct its error.

No matter how well intentioned, for the Legislature to pass retroactive legislation that would in essence purport to know what the will and intent of the court was in hundreds, if not thousands of cases, not only crosses the line between the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches of government — it obliterates it altogether.