Category: Probation and Parole

CA Lawsuit to Stop Early Inmate Releases Moves Forward

The California Globe published CJLF’s press release on last Friday’s favorable ruling in the lawsuit to end the state’s early releases of prison inmates.

On Friday, September 1, a Sacramento judge rejected California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s attempt to throw out a lawsuit challenging the Newsom Administration’s scheme to grant early release to tens of thousands of prison inmates. The suit, brought by the Sacramento-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (CJLF) on behalf of crime victims and their families, argues that administrative regulations authorizing the inmate releases, adopted in 2021 by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), violate numerous state laws and ballot measures that specify when and how a prison inmate qualifies for credits to gain early release and when those credits may be used to advance a minimum eligible parole date. The Foundation is seeking a writ of mandate to halt the releases.

Continue reading . . .

Defining “Violent”

One would not think that defining “violent crime” is all that difficult. Yet in both federal law and California law, there are definitions of “violent” that are excessively narrow, excluding crimes that everyone with sense would consider violent. Dan Walters has this column at CalMatters, titled “California law treats some violent crimes as nonviolent, letting offenders off the hook.” He has an extended quote from this column by Emily Hoeven at the SF Chronicle (behind a paywall).

From Walters’ column:

Hoeven noted that earlier this year, the Assembly’s (perhaps misnamed) Public Safety Committee rejected a Republican bill to classify domestic violence as a violent crime, thereby making it easier to keep offenders behind bars.

This outrageous situation results from a 2016 ballot measure, sponsored principally by then-Gov. Jerry Brown and passed by voters, that purported to give those who commit nonviolent crimes chances to earn their way out of prison.

However, it was deceptive. Proposition 57’s indirect definition of a nonviolent crime was that it did not appear on a specific Penal Code list of 23 violent crimes.

That list only referred to particularly heinous crimes and omitted many offenses that ordinary folks would consider violent, including some forms of rape and domestic violence. The result is that those who commit some unspeakable crimes, including battering one’s spouse, are given kid gloves treatment in the penal system.

How did the definition get so screwed up? The problem in California is, in substantial part, the result of lazy drafting. (The federal problem is a topic for another post.) Continue reading . . .

SB 94 – Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics – Murderers do not “Age Out”

Steve Smith of Pacific Research Institute has this post on a bill that is exceptionally bad even by the California Legislature’s low standards. The bill  would make a large number of murderers sentenced to life without possibility for parole eligible for parole.  Smith notes:

SB 94 is based on the simplistic and poorly researched premise that, based on arrest statistics alone, criminals age out of crime. The bill’s author, Senator Dave Cortese, argues that “research overwhelmingly shows that people age out of violent crime….”

Both [Sen. Cortese’s] press release and the study [it cites] suffer from a glaring omission. Neither make the connection between age and the crimes for which the offender was sentenced. Continue reading . . .

Under the Radar: How Gov. Newsom Uses Clemency to Engineer Parole for Recidivist Felons and Murderers

Ron Matthias has this op-ed in the California Globe with the above title. The subtitle is If it were up to Newsom, the public would learn nothing more about those prisoners and their claimed rehabilitation. Here is the first paragraph:

Gov. Gavin Newsom is big on demanding transparency and accountability from others, such as school officials and social media companies. But from himself, not so much—and especially not when it comes to using his clemency powers to engineer the future release of recidivist criminals, including some who’ve been convicted of murders so heinous they’re not even eligible for parole. Continue reading . . .

Inadequate analysis yields unintended consequences

Syndicated columnist Thomas Elias has this column with the above title on the consequences of California’s sentence-reducing ballot propositions of the previous decade, Proposition 47 of 2014 and Proposition 57 of 2016.

Here’s a reality that needs to soak into the consciousness of California lawmakers, the governor and voters who put them in office: This state needs far better analysis and vetting of new laws if it’s to avoid negative unintended consequences.

And when we get solid analysis and reliable predictions of some consequences, we need to pay heed, not ignore reality.

These facts of life are perhaps best illustrated by the 2014 Proposition 47, which ended felony status for thefts and burglaries involving less than $950 worth of goods and reduced some other felonies, like stealing a gun, to misdemeanors.

One unintended consequence has been closure of some stores, notably Walgreen’s and Whole Foods outlets that suffered constant shoplifting and no penalties for thieves caught red-handed. That’s an inconvenience making life more complex from San Francisco to San Diego.

Continue reading . . .

The Pillowcase Rapist and the Folly of Current Cal. Policies

A post earlier today described the case of the “pillowcase rapist” and his arrest for a new violent crime at the age of 71, following release after only half his sentence. Further research has determined that this appalling result comes from an old, misguided law that has since been fixed, not the current misguided policy. Even so, the case illustrates the folly of the current policies. It is yet one more example of the maxim that those who cannot remember history are condemned to repeat it. Continue reading . . .

Millionaire Serial Rapist Likely to Be Released in 4 Years Due to “Reforms”

The soft on crime crowd likes to call their agenda “criminal justice reform.” The term “reform” is usually associated with efforts to make things better, but so-called criminal justice reform in California appears to be aimed at creating as many miscarriages of justice as possible.

Andrew Luster, heir to the Max Factor make up fortune, committed multiple rapes by drugging his victims. In 2003, he was convicted of 86 offenses and sentenced to 124 years in prison, according to this story by Travis Schlepp for KTLA. With a sentence that long, one would think that the victims could rest assured he would never get out and put him out of their minds to the extent possible, right?

In 2003, Luster’s sentence was vacated on the ground that the original judge did not state the reasons for giving him the maximum on each count, as obvious as they may be, and the new judge resentenced him to 50 years. But that is still pretty much life without parole for a defendant who was 40 at the time of the trial, right? The victims could still rest assured he would not get out until he was dead or at least very old, couldn’t they? Enter Proposition 57. Continue reading . . .

Tricky measure allows release of violent felons

Dan Walters has this column with the above title at Cal Matters on the continuing harm from Jerry Brown’s deceptive 2016 initiative, Proposition 57.

Six years ago, then-Gov. Jerry Brown tricked California voters into passing a ballot measure that, he said, would make it easier for non-violent felons to earn paroles and thus ease the state prison system’s severe overcrowding.

Continue reading . . .

California’s Prison Credit Mess, Explained

Retired Deputy Director of California State Parole Douglas Eckenrod explains the present mess with excessive early release credits being handed out to prisoners in this interview with California Insider on Epoch TV.

The credits are presently being challenged in two lawsuits where CJLF is representing the plaintiffs and a third being conducted by the Sacramento District Attorney’s Office on behalf of dozens of California district attorneys.

Cal. Supreme Court Rejects Parole for Violent Felons with Determinate Terms

The California Supreme Court today rejected an interpretation of California’s Proposition 57 that would have allowed convicted felons with a determinate sentence for a mix of violent and non-violent felony convictions to seek parole, when those with only a single violent crime conviction could not. That such a bizarre result is even a plausible reading goes only to show how poorly written and poorly conceived this initiative was.

The opinion in In re Mohammad, S259999 is here. Don Thompson has this story for Associated Press. CJLF’s brief by Kym Stapleton is here. Our press release is here.

UPDATE (by CJLF staff):  CJLF Legal Director Kent Scheidegger appeared on LA’s KFI John & Ken Show discussing the Court’s decision.  Here’s the link to listen to Hour 2.  Kent comes on about 4 minutes into the broadcast. 
Continue reading . . .