Bringing parole out of the shadows
The passage of Prop 57, predicated on the false promise that only non-violent felons would be eligible for early release, may shortly result in many dangerous felons receiving an early release.
However, while the media spotlight may shift away, we intend to track this initiative, the promises made, and highlight the felons who receive early release.
Proposition 57 on the Nov. 8 ballot contained no criteria for what an inmate had to do to qualify for early parole consideration, leaving that task to the bureaucrats at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
Similarly, after we and others pointed out the numerous sex offenders eligible for early release under Prop 57, Gov. Jerry Brown promised that regulations would be written to block their eligibility. Prop 57 also gave power to the Corrections Department to invent sentence credits for all inmates.
One of Governor Brown’s main talking points in support of Prop 57 was his derision of elected district attorneys who, in his view, have “unfettered, unreviewable” discretion to “charge whatever the hell he wants.”
In the governor’s view, Prop 57 was a better alternative that has a “professional group of people privately evaluating when to release our prisoners.”
Putting aside the misstatements of the governor regarding the power of a district attorney, what should be alarming to everyone is the statement that parole releases will be done “in private” by “professionals.”
First, parole releases are a
Michele
HANISEE matter of public record, not a private affair for unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats. One of Browns’ “professional group of people” is an attorney who spent five of his seven years practicing law representing inmates seeking parole.
For far too long the Parole Board has operated in the shadows, its decisions only questioned in high-profile cases such as when it voted to release brutal murderers like Leslie Van Houten.
Since the pool of inmates they can release has been greatly expanded by Prop 57, it is about time the light of day shines on the Parole Commission. After all, the elected district attorneys whom Brown has such contempt for must face voters every four years, justify their past terms, and explain why they should be re-elected.
There is absolutely no reason that the parole commissioner, their deputy commissioners, and anybody else given the authority to grant early releases and usurp a judges’ sentencing decision, should avoid similar scrutiny.
We have already seen the disaster that is Prop 47 and the property crime wave it unleashed. The inmates that Prop 57 will release early were sent to prison with sentences they earned via their current crime and criminal history.
When these early release inmates commit a new crime because they were on the streets instead of remaining imprisoned, the “professionals” we intend to hold responsible will be the parole commissioners who made the decision to release them early.
We will not accept, nor should the public accept, the excuse that the commissioner is not responsible for an inmate’s behavior upon release because it will be only by the release decision that the inmate had a chance to commit the crime.
While Brown may be excited to give dangerous felons a “second chance,” we certainly don’t share his enthusiasm.
Our job is to protect the public, and we intend to do so by fully informing the public whom the governor’s proposition has released and any crimes committed upon that inmate’s release.
Selling an initiative upon abstract promises of “second chances” for “non-violent” felons will undoubtedly turn out to be the easy part of Prop 57. The reality of who those released are and what they did upon release will be the ugly truth.
Michele Hanisee is president of the Association of Los Angeles Deputy District Attorneys, the collective bargaining agent representing nearly 1,000 deputy district attorneys who work for Los Angeles County.
While Brown may be excited to give dangerous felons a “second chance,” we certainly don’t share
his enthusiasm.