The current economic recession has forced some states to consider reducing prison personnel, but that then requires the states to reduce the number of inmates that they can then accommodate. In order that the number of inmates who are being released, prison officials, parole boards and the governor of the state(s) must make decisions which impact the community-at-large.
“Killers who are eligible for early release can’t be denied just because of their crimes, some judges have ruled.” (emphasis added) This is the ‘sub-heading’ according to a story in a recent Los Angeles Times newspaper. Before we consider a recapitulation of this story, which has many ramifications for society as well as the individuals concerned, we should probably consider the basis upon which the United States of America has been built.
We frequently hear how this country was established using “Judeo-Christian” Ethics. And, again, without discussing how the “Christian” ethics came out of the Jewish Torah; we should consider just what it is that the Torah [the Five Books of Moses] and the Tanach [the entire Jewish Bible] teaches us that would have an impact and relevance on this matter. [Do not become concerned with the famous “eye-for-an-eye” discussion, for - unless you are grounded in Talmudic literature and discussions – you will be led to make wrong assumptions!]
Now, let’s look at some of the items touched on in this [(©) Sunday 13 December 2009] article:
A convict, James Alexander, has spent 26 years in prison for killing a (fellow) drug dealer but has maintained a “spotless behavior” and has helped other inmates to shake addictions. He has been recommended, on three occasions, for parole by the parole commissioners and Gov. Schwarzenegger has over-ruled them. He, Alexander, is one of the many so-called ‘lifers’ deemed rehabilitated but have not been released as their crime was murder.
In recent years some judges (we are not told how many) have sided with the ‘lifers’ – see the comment above! The judges claim that there must be ‘some evidence’ that they would pose a threat to public safety if released. This legal notion that puts the onus on corrections officials is being challenges in the U.S, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
In California there are about 23,000 prisoners serving life sentences that are ‘technically’ eligible for parole. Another 4,000 serving life without parole and 685 on death row who can never be considered for release under these conditions. In the state of California the 1980’s had a succession of ‘tough-on-crime’ governors. In 1983 Gov. George Deukejian invoked a rarely used 1913 law to over-rule the parole board to free murderer William Archie Fain after an angry outcry from the community where Fain’s victims had lived. Since then successive governors more frequently reversed parole grants.\
Despite a federal court order to reduce prison over-crowding (in CA), neither Schwarzenegger nor corrections officials have suggested (even) considering violent offenders for early release. Victims’ rights organizations defend the governor’s power (and responsibility) to keep murders off the streets [especially with the current economic crisis which has cut funding for law enforcement and parole supervision]! “For the sake of public safety – that’s what we have life sentences for,” said the head of Crime Victims United of California; “That should be a deterrent to crime: that you won’t ever get out if you get a life sentence.” ("Don't talk the talk, if you can't walk the walk.")
Meanwhile, Bill Schmidt, an attorney who specializes in representing lifers, says that, “The question of whether reformed prisoners should get parole is often clouded by the horrific nature of their crime.” He sites Charles Manson who has shown little remorse or rehabilitation (for his 1969 cult slayings), while some of his accomplices have maintained unblemished records for almost four decades. Still, he claims, that they have systematically been denied parole.
Popular opinion supports keeping the most notorious killers locked up forever. Schmidt (attempts to make his case by saying): “Where does the law give the subjective authority to say ‘No, your crime was so horrendous that we’re not ever going to let you out’?” In a recent case before a three-judge panel, the judges stated that the parole board’s decision (against a murderer) in 2008, that the prisoner’s constitutional right (?) to due process had been violated [because the Gov. failed to cite evidence that the prisoner was still dangerous]. The judges ruled that a parole board’s decision “deprives a prisoner of due process with respect to this [liberty] interest” if the decision is “not supported by some evidence in the record or is otherwise arbitrary.” [Please note that] the judges’ decision was suspended four months later by the court’s vote to reconsider the case by a full 11-judge panel.
A Supervising Deputy Atty. General has urged the appeals court to reconsider whether prisoners have a liberty interest in parole decisions, arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t recognized a right to parole barring evidence that a prisoner remains dangerous. It was argues that life prisoners have no right to a term less than life (and) so denial of parole “merely means that the inmate will have to serve out his sentence as expected.”
Last year two decisions by the CA Supreme court reiterated the need to show “some evidence” that the prisoner poses a risk and in one case, the state high court held that the heinousness (of the 1971 crime) was not enough to justify continued incarceration. [What? Does this mean that a jury and a court’s decision can be overturned at another time by another court without regard to the people’s decision? Or a retrial based on new evidence? ed.]. The same court, on the same day, also referred to the “some evidence” standard but (also) ruled that gov. Schwarzenegger had identified grounds for denying parole when he said that (that prisoner) suffered a “lack of insight” into how he came to… kill his wife.
Now we come to a court of appeals that has been appointed by differing political Presidents and the determination, apparently, now is one which will be influenced by politics and different agendas rather than on a purely objective bench of judges. How much political beliefs will have an influence remains to be seen, but the public – society at large – is in danger of losing comfort at the expense of murderers and hardened criminals further educated in the closed environment of jails and prisons. On the other hand the court could establish the governor’s exclusive control over parole which, again, enters the realm of politics.
“They scared me to death,” said a paralegal regarding questions from the bench following oral arguments in the case last year, “It seemed clear to me that the judges are wanting to reverse this decision.” This is the statement by a man who spent 33 years in prison, studied law (at taxpayers expense) and secured his own court-ordered release in 2003, marking a turning point in the battle between state officials and courts over parole.
Legal scholars now say that this case now going before the full 11-judge court may provide a decision which will depend on how federal judges interpret the intent of laws on sentencing. And, “It goes back to the question of whether we want sentences to be punitive and how to weigh rehabilitation verses punishment”
We are now left to consider: what do we understand, what do we learn from Torah study and what do we (as a society) want from our courts, our judges and our over-all “Judeo-Christian” based ethical legal system. How do we, individually, consider the ramifications of the criminal mind seeking freedom and society’s need for peace of mind?
Not too long ago, it was considered that an inmate (a prisoner – one incarcerated for having murdered) had foregone his ‘rights’ and his ‘privileges’ as a member of society and as such did not enjoy the freedoms that legally observant citizens did. When did this concept change? Should those convicted and sentenced to life in prison for murder – no matter the “rehabilitation” or not – expect to find his rights and privileges restored by parole boards and judges who are influenced by au courant concepts of ‘liberty for all’, which would, following that line of thought, include non-citizens who would fly planes into buildings or murder another person in any manner? Should we consider inmates in prisons as living in a "city of sanctuary"? If so, would it follow that if they were ‘freed’ by parole boards and judges, that they would be placing themselves in a position whereby their victim’s relatives could then murder them in retaliation without fear of retribution according to the law?
If the economy made a 180° turn and we no longer had to reduce prison staff, would all of these questions be moot? What is our obligation to our fellow who finds himself incarcerated for acts for which he truly regrets?
“Killers who are eligible for early release can’t be denied just because of their crimes, some judges have ruled.” (emphasis added) This is the ‘sub-heading’ according to a story in a recent Los Angeles Times newspaper. Before we consider a recapitulation of this story, which has many ramifications for society as well as the individuals concerned, we should probably consider the basis upon which the United States of America has been built.
We frequently hear how this country was established using “Judeo-Christian” Ethics. And, again, without discussing how the “Christian” ethics came out of the Jewish Torah; we should consider just what it is that the Torah [the Five Books of Moses] and the Tanach [the entire Jewish Bible] teaches us that would have an impact and relevance on this matter. [Do not become concerned with the famous “eye-for-an-eye” discussion, for - unless you are grounded in Talmudic literature and discussions – you will be led to make wrong assumptions!]
Now, let’s look at some of the items touched on in this [(©) Sunday 13 December 2009] article:
A convict, James Alexander, has spent 26 years in prison for killing a (fellow) drug dealer but has maintained a “spotless behavior” and has helped other inmates to shake addictions. He has been recommended, on three occasions, for parole by the parole commissioners and Gov. Schwarzenegger has over-ruled them. He, Alexander, is one of the many so-called ‘lifers’ deemed rehabilitated but have not been released as their crime was murder.
In recent years some judges (we are not told how many) have sided with the ‘lifers’ – see the comment above! The judges claim that there must be ‘some evidence’ that they would pose a threat to public safety if released. This legal notion that puts the onus on corrections officials is being challenges in the U.S, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
In California there are about 23,000 prisoners serving life sentences that are ‘technically’ eligible for parole. Another 4,000 serving life without parole and 685 on death row who can never be considered for release under these conditions. In the state of California the 1980’s had a succession of ‘tough-on-crime’ governors. In 1983 Gov. George Deukejian invoked a rarely used 1913 law to over-rule the parole board to free murderer William Archie Fain after an angry outcry from the community where Fain’s victims had lived. Since then successive governors more frequently reversed parole grants.\
Despite a federal court order to reduce prison over-crowding (in CA), neither Schwarzenegger nor corrections officials have suggested (even) considering violent offenders for early release. Victims’ rights organizations defend the governor’s power (and responsibility) to keep murders off the streets [especially with the current economic crisis which has cut funding for law enforcement and parole supervision]! “For the sake of public safety – that’s what we have life sentences for,” said the head of Crime Victims United of California; “That should be a deterrent to crime: that you won’t ever get out if you get a life sentence.” ("Don't talk the talk, if you can't walk the walk.")
Meanwhile, Bill Schmidt, an attorney who specializes in representing lifers, says that, “The question of whether reformed prisoners should get parole is often clouded by the horrific nature of their crime.” He sites Charles Manson who has shown little remorse or rehabilitation (for his 1969 cult slayings), while some of his accomplices have maintained unblemished records for almost four decades. Still, he claims, that they have systematically been denied parole.
Popular opinion supports keeping the most notorious killers locked up forever. Schmidt (attempts to make his case by saying): “Where does the law give the subjective authority to say ‘No, your crime was so horrendous that we’re not ever going to let you out’?” In a recent case before a three-judge panel, the judges stated that the parole board’s decision (against a murderer) in 2008, that the prisoner’s constitutional right (?) to due process had been violated [because the Gov. failed to cite evidence that the prisoner was still dangerous]. The judges ruled that a parole board’s decision “deprives a prisoner of due process with respect to this [liberty] interest” if the decision is “not supported by some evidence in the record or is otherwise arbitrary.” [Please note that] the judges’ decision was suspended four months later by the court’s vote to reconsider the case by a full 11-judge panel.
A Supervising Deputy Atty. General has urged the appeals court to reconsider whether prisoners have a liberty interest in parole decisions, arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t recognized a right to parole barring evidence that a prisoner remains dangerous. It was argues that life prisoners have no right to a term less than life (and) so denial of parole “merely means that the inmate will have to serve out his sentence as expected.”
Last year two decisions by the CA Supreme court reiterated the need to show “some evidence” that the prisoner poses a risk and in one case, the state high court held that the heinousness (of the 1971 crime) was not enough to justify continued incarceration. [What? Does this mean that a jury and a court’s decision can be overturned at another time by another court without regard to the people’s decision? Or a retrial based on new evidence? ed.]. The same court, on the same day, also referred to the “some evidence” standard but (also) ruled that gov. Schwarzenegger had identified grounds for denying parole when he said that (that prisoner) suffered a “lack of insight” into how he came to… kill his wife.
Now we come to a court of appeals that has been appointed by differing political Presidents and the determination, apparently, now is one which will be influenced by politics and different agendas rather than on a purely objective bench of judges. How much political beliefs will have an influence remains to be seen, but the public – society at large – is in danger of losing comfort at the expense of murderers and hardened criminals further educated in the closed environment of jails and prisons. On the other hand the court could establish the governor’s exclusive control over parole which, again, enters the realm of politics.
“They scared me to death,” said a paralegal regarding questions from the bench following oral arguments in the case last year, “It seemed clear to me that the judges are wanting to reverse this decision.” This is the statement by a man who spent 33 years in prison, studied law (at taxpayers expense) and secured his own court-ordered release in 2003, marking a turning point in the battle between state officials and courts over parole.
Legal scholars now say that this case now going before the full 11-judge court may provide a decision which will depend on how federal judges interpret the intent of laws on sentencing. And, “It goes back to the question of whether we want sentences to be punitive and how to weigh rehabilitation verses punishment”
We are now left to consider: what do we understand, what do we learn from Torah study and what do we (as a society) want from our courts, our judges and our over-all “Judeo-Christian” based ethical legal system. How do we, individually, consider the ramifications of the criminal mind seeking freedom and society’s need for peace of mind?
Not too long ago, it was considered that an inmate (a prisoner – one incarcerated for having murdered) had foregone his ‘rights’ and his ‘privileges’ as a member of society and as such did not enjoy the freedoms that legally observant citizens did. When did this concept change? Should those convicted and sentenced to life in prison for murder – no matter the “rehabilitation” or not – expect to find his rights and privileges restored by parole boards and judges who are influenced by au courant concepts of ‘liberty for all’, which would, following that line of thought, include non-citizens who would fly planes into buildings or murder another person in any manner? Should we consider inmates in prisons as living in a "city of sanctuary"? If so, would it follow that if they were ‘freed’ by parole boards and judges, that they would be placing themselves in a position whereby their victim’s relatives could then murder them in retaliation without fear of retribution according to the law?
If the economy made a 180° turn and we no longer had to reduce prison staff, would all of these questions be moot? What is our obligation to our fellow who finds himself incarcerated for acts for which he truly regrets?
___Yisrael Betzalel ben Avraham
I have used the masculine form here, even though we find many women in prisons because they too have murdered, simply because it is easier than to continue to say: “him or her”; “he or she”, or the strange construction- “s/he”.
* Los Angeles Times – California Section, pp A41 & A51; Sunday 13 December 2009 with editorial license taken in paraphrasing the article by Carol J. Williams as well as inserting my own questions, note and comment. Please consider this situation with the concern that it requires. Thank you.
* Los Angeles Times – California Section, pp A41 & A51; Sunday 13 December 2009 with editorial license taken in paraphrasing the article by Carol J. Williams as well as inserting my own questions, note and comment. Please consider this situation with the concern that it requires. Thank you.
Posts
