Politicians Using Fear and Lies to Push Parole Bill

As we discussed in an earlier post, politicians are using the unfortunate case of Jaycee Lee Dugard to be seen as favoring a bill restricting parole and what can be considered when parole is determined. In reality, what they are pushing is less the bill than their ambitions.

While the merits of the bill, both pro and con,  can certainly be debated, the public should at least have all of the facts available before making up their minds and not just the “spin” of politicians, be they DAs, legislators, or judges,  concerned not with justice but only with their career.

As the Sacramento Bee points out, the Parole Reform Act of 2011 is “treacherously misleading”.

“Garrido was neither sentenced in California nor subject to California’s existing parole laws, such as the 2006 Sexual Predator Referendum, or Proposition 83, with lifetime civil commitments.

California “lifer” inmates with indeterminate sentences average 26.2 years in prison before parole is granted, and the most horrific crimes remain life without the possibility of parole. Judges, juries and district attorneys decide the type of sentence.”

The claims of State Sen. Ted Gaines that the state Supreme Court’s “Lawrence (decision) basically forbids the parole board from using a convict’s original crime when determining parole” is factually untrue.

Both Gaines and the bill’s co-sponsor, Assymblywoman Alyson Huber,  “conveniently ignore the fact that while the approximate 10,000 inmates per month violate parole at the rate of 70 percent, most without supervision, of the approximate 1,000 lifers paroled over the last 20 years, only six were subsequently convicted for violent crimes.”

The Sacramento Bee also points out that the legislation, if passed, could cost the state an additional $3 billion a year as the prisoners sentenced to life age






Comments are Closed