May 28, 2011 Sac Bee - No discussion of parole and recidivism is complete without discussing murderers. The prison terms of murderers eligible for release on parole have grown dramatically, in some states doubled, over the past 20 years. In California inmates convicted of murder and eligible for parole served an average of 17 years in 2000; now their average stay is 33 years.
Although most of us cringe at the thought of releasing convicted murderers, their behavior on parole has been remarkable. Their recidivism rate is the lowest of all classes of inmates (1.6 percent in New York, 2 percent in California) and their recidivism rate has remained under 2 percent for decades.
Parole boards having to decide whether an inmate would be a threat to society if released should factor that into their decision. But bias among parole board members has resulted in a wide variety of parole standards being applied to the parole decision process. A close examination of what parole board members decided in 2010 shows that one member approved parole of a murderer only 8 percent of the time, whereas another approved 33 percent. The remaining parole board members were somewhere between those two extremes.
In an effort to improve recidivism and create more consistency in parole decisions, Nevada in 2004 adopted a point system, taking into account various factors believed to help predict how an inmate will function in society if released.
California would do well to examine the Nevada model and create its own parole point system.
-------------------------------
I’d like to see legislation based on the evidence and not based on fear. I’d like to see elected officials respect their constituents enough to give us the truth and not leverage sensationalized media to pass bills. We call on inmates to have accountability for their crimes and the harm they caused. I call on our legislators to have accountability, integrity, honesty, AND ethics in their actions and to reflect on the harm they are causing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
8-25-2011 Sac Bee - Comment found below the story..
Now please, please everyone; don't go running for your phones and locks. I AM A "LIFER"! I AM ON PAROLE! I was sentenced to a term of 25 years to life for a 1st degree murder. I served 24 years, 9 months, and 16 days of that sentence then I was found suitable for parole, that is, I WAS GIVEN (earned) a parole date. It took over 3 months for that decision to be finalized by a full board and then the Governor. I have been out among the people 15 months shy of 5 years. So, you can figure where I stand on this issue; the people of California are being set up for another train wreck that they will pay for. I wanted to make one thing clear and that is when you read an article that says: "What has Lawrence wrought? For example, between 2005 and 2007, 521 lifers were granted parole. Between 2008 and 2010 – the three years since the Lawrence decision – that number almost tripled, with 1,329 lifers getting parole dates. That is a monumental surge and a trend that puts us and our children in peril." YOU MUST UNDERSTAND that you are being misled greatly. 1,329 lifers may very well have received parole dates, that is just that, a DATE. It does not mean they were released! Between the parole board's decision to find the lifer suitable, there is a gauntlet that must be run which includes the Governor. They did not all get out! I am aware of one case where the lifer was found suitable, given a date for release, and was then denied 2, TWO, TWO DAYS before he was to walk through the gates! Please look carefully at what you read, then look at it again for what is missing, then look at what was written that has nothing to do with the main subject.
Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/08/25/3860225/reform-bill-will-untie-hands-of.html#ixzz1Y0nyBTzz
-------------------------------------------------------
Aouie Rubio August 23, 2011 - 2:29 pm
I am extremely concerned about the fear tactics being used to manipulate the
general public by using the Jaycee Dugard case to gain support for and pass
SB391. I oppose SB391.
Here are the facts:
• Garrido was not convicted and sentenced under the State of California penal
system.
• Rapists and sex offenders in the State of California are not sentenced to a
term-to-life sentence where term-to-lifers are subjected to the parole board
hearing process. Rather, rapists and sex offenders, unless there is a kidnap or
other circumstance involved, are given term (or otherwise referred to as
determinate sentences for a set number of years) and are not subject to the
parole hearing process that those sentenced to term-to-life are subjected.
• Co-author Jim Nielsen, formerly the President of the Board of Prison Terms, is
well aware of how California Parole Board Hearing process works and what prison
population (term-to-lifers) are subjected to this process.
Where SB391 co-authors are truthful:
• The co-authors clearly want to reverse the Supreme Court ruling on In re
Lawrence which:
o Clearly instructed the Parole Board Commissioners and the Governor’s office
who continued to break the law by their “Tough on Crime” and “No Parole”
initiatives were not finding term-to –life inmates suitable for parole who HAVE
demonstrated their own suitability for parole to find those individuals suitable
and give them a parole date;
Reference California Penal Code Section 3041.5;
Reference California Code of Regulations, Title 15, Section 2402; and
o Clearly articulated that the original crime will not change and that the
original crime should not be the only determining factor to deny parole
suitability.
I oppose SB391.
The co-authors of SB391 are not clearly connecting the two different
populations. The co-authors are banking on the voting public’s lack of
understanding of the California Penal Code and sentencing structure and the
public’s general fear for what happened to Jaycee Dugard (which I agree should
never have happened to anyone) for a bait-and-switch bill that focuses on a
prison population that is not related to the Garrido inspired case.
What the co-authors are also not clearly stating is that if SB391 were in effect
during Garrido’s imprisonment (and let’s pretend Garrido was sentenced in
California which he was NOT), SB391 would not have prevented Garrido from being
released! This goes back to the FACT that Garrido would not have been given a
term-to-life sentence. Garrido, under the State of California sentencing
structure would have been given a determinate (or a term) sentence. This means,
Garrido would not have been required to go through the parole board hearing
process which SB391 targets.
• Reference California Penal Codes 261 or 262 for the laws pertaining to those
convicted of rape.
Here are more facts:
• The determinate or term sentence inmate population that are released from
prison based on the set number of years given during sentencing, like Garrido,
are released without having to go through the parole board hearing process.
o This means that this segment of term prisoners are not required to demonstrate
any level of proof of reform and or readiness to re-enter into society with
minimal evidence of likelihood re-offend.
o This fact is supported by the 70% recidivism rate of those released under a
term sentence as provided by CDCR statistics obtained by Reporter Nancy Mullane.
• The term-to-life sentenced inmate population ARE required to present their
parole suitability through the parole hearing process. Suitability is based on
review of parole plans and parole criteria set forth by the CDCR and the Board
of Parole Hearings which include but not limited to prison behavior,
accountability, etc.
o Term-to-life prisoners in California are also incarcerated well beyond their
minimum eligible date for parole. As such, many of these prisoners are elderly
and require more medical attention.
o Term-to-life prisoners who seek parole actively engage in programs and
activities to turn their lives around in hopes to demonstrate their suitability
and return as productive members of society.
o Because the Board of Parole Hearing Commissioners and the Governor’s office
consistently did not follow the California law in finding term-to-life prisoners
suitable for parole based on the original crime and not on the parole
suitability criteria published by the CDCR and the State of California,
term-to-life prisoners sought relief through the Courts. This is why the
co-authors of SB391 are going after the reversal of In re Lawrence.
o These facts that demonstrate term-to-lifers are not the populations which
SB391 should be targeting are supported by the .06% recidivism rate of
term-to-life inmates paroled over a 21 year period as provided by CDCR
statistics obtained by Reporter Nancy Mullane.
What do these facts mean to the public? This is the bait-and-switch part.
• BAIT: Determinate sentenced prisoners, people who commit crimes in California
like Garrido, which SB391 says it was inspired by, receive set sentences and
have a 7-in-10 chance of reoffending and reoffending with a more violent crime.
• SWITCH: Term-to-life prisoners, the population that SB391 targets, do not
re-offend at the rates being presented by the co-authors of this bill. The
co-authors of SB391 are relying on public fear. When term-to-life prisoners are
paroled back into the community, less than 1-in-10 term-to-lifers paroled
re-offend. Additionally, over the last 21 years, not one of the term-to-lifers
paroled have not committed escalated violent crimes.
I oppose SB391.
The California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation on June 14, 2011
released the following data:
• In the past 21 years, 988 term-to-life prisoners convicted of first or second
degree murder
• were paroled.
• Of those 988 term-to-life prisoners convicted of murder, only 13 were returned
to prison
• after a new criminal conviction.
• Seven (7) of the thirteen (13) convictions were for crimes that are NOT
• considered “serious or violent.”
• Only six (6) of the thirteen (13) were convicted of “serious or violent”
offenses
• 1 for assault with a deadly weapon
• 1 for first degree burglary
• 1 for “other assault/battery”
• 3 for robbery
• These six “serious or violent” crimes amount to a recidivism rate of 0.6% for
term-to-life
• prisoners previously convicted of murder.
• Zero (0) paroled term-to-life prisoners previously convicted of murder have
been
• convicted of first degree murder since they were paroled.
• Zero (0) paroled term-to-life prisoners previously convicted of murder have
been
• convicted of second degree murder since they were paroled.
• Zero (0) paroled term-to-life prisoners previously convicted of murder have
been
• convicted of voluntary manslaughter since they were paroled.
• Zero (0) paroled term-to-life prisoners previously convicted of murder have
been
• convicted of involuntary manslaughter since they were paroled.
• Zero (0) paroled term-to-life prisoners previously convicted of murder have
been
• convicted of kidnapping since they were paroled.
• Zero (0) paroled term-to-life prisoners previously convicted of murder have
been
• convicted of rape since they were paroled.
• Zero (0) paroled term-to-life prisoners previously convicted of murder have
been
• convicted of statutory rape since they were paroled.
• Zero (0) paroled term-to-life prisoners previously convicted of murder have
been
• convicted of child molestation since they were paroled.
Just during 2009 alone, 149 parolees that were not term-to-life prisoners were
convicted of murder.
The recidivism rate for non-murder parolees has typically hovered close to 70%.
I’d like to see legislation based on the evidence and not based on fear. I’d
like to see elected officials respect their constituents enough to give us the
truth and not leverage sensationalized media to pass bills. We call on inmates
to have accountability for their crimes and the harm they caused. I call on our
legislators to have accountability, integrity, honesty, AND ethics in their
actions and to reflect on the harm they are causing.