Lifer parole policy needs balance

[qwerty]

Parole policy needs balance
The Monterey County Herald
Article Last Updated: 10/11/2007 01:34:02 AM PDT
Editorial

It once was a simple truth that many long prison sentences were fictions intended, at least partly, to mollify victims. Twenty-to-life meant seven or eight years because of time off for good behavior. News stories often told us about some horrible new crime committed by a parolee who supposedly had been locked away for life.

When the sentencing deception became widespread knowledge late in the last century, it contributed mightily to public outcry about the crime rate, which led to tougher sentencing laws. But as with many trends, this one went too far. So far that now when a California convict is sentenced to 20-to-life, it probably means life. When the sentence is life with the possibility of parole, it really means life without any reasonable chance of parole.

Not many people will lose sleep over the issue. But judges and even some prosecutors are saying that when circumstances warrant, it is finally time for the tough-on-crime tide of the 1970s and '80s to recede, at least a little, for reasons of simple fairness and orderly administration of justice.

As Herald reporter Julia Reynolds demonstrated in her series this week, "Down for Life," inmates imprisoned for decades without showing any dangerous signs are routinely being denied parole solely because of "the nature of their crime," even when the crime was not exceptional. Even when the inmate's subsequent record has been pure.

Some of the blame goes to the Willie Horton factor. Remembering how the crimes of that former lifer helped derail Michael Dukakis' presidential campaign, politicians today have almost no faith in the powers of redemption. Recent California governors Gray Davis and Pete Wilson almost never said yes to parole requests, and the current governor is nearly as cautious. As Reynolds reported, Gov. Schwarzenegger routinely overrules the state Board of Parole Hearings on the relatively rare occasions that it recommends parole for aging lifers. The governor has even removed board members he considered too receptive to parole requests.

Read more: http://www.montereyherald.com/opinion/ci_7145364