California Supreme Court Redefines Parole
Posted on August 25, 2008
Filed Under Laws, News |
A recent decision by the California Supreme Court changed radically how parole works in California. The court made it easier for prison inmates to win parole despite a governor’s objections, ruling that a woman who fatally shot and stabbed another woman with a potato peeler should remain free.
The 4 to 3 ruling, written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, could affect nearly 1,000 parole cases now on appeal. Lawyers on both sides said it was the first time in recent history that the state high court ruled in favor of a prisoner in a parole case. Governors often deny parole to criminals whose crimes are particularly gruesome. In denying parole the the woman whose case came before the court, Gov. Schwarzenegger cited the “shockingly vicious” attack and the woman’s use of various aliases to avoid arrest for 11 years after the murder.
Parole is the supervised release of a prisoner before the completion of his/her sentence. The state legislature passes laws that determine the length of sentences for each crime, as well as inmate-release policies. Normally, parole for ex-cons runs three years, and nearly everyone is on it for the same length of time, regardless of their crime. However, in cases that are particularly violent, the governor has the power to reject parole. In this new ruling, the court said decisions on whether to grant parole to prisoners who received life sentences should be based on whether the inmate would pose a danger to the public if released. The court’s action marks a departure from a 2002 ruling, which held that the crime itself could justify denial.
Various restrictions come along with the terms of parole; California routinely orders near-universal drug testing for parolees. This is to make sure that those individuals recently released from prison are watched by the state.
For assistance with parole issues, contact the law firm of Stephen G. Rodriguez and Associates.
Comments
Leave a Reply