Discussion | 2 comments

The Mountain Democrat does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy

• Aouie RubioAugust 23, 2011 - 2:29 pm

  I am extremely concerned about the fear tactics being used to manipulate the general public by using the Jaycee Dugard case to gain support for and pass SB391. I oppose SB391. Here are the facts: • Garrido was not convicted and sentenced under the State of California penal system. • Rapists and sex offenders in the State of California are not sentenced to a term-to-life sentence where term-to-lifers are subjected to the parole board hearing process. Rather, rapists and sex offenders, unless there is a kidnap or other circumstance involved, are given term (or otherwise referred to as determinate sentences for a set number of years) and are not subject to the parole hearing process that those sentenced to term-to-life are subjected. • Co-author Jim Nielsen, formerly the President of the Board of Prison Terms, is well aware of how California Parole Board Hearing process works and what prison population (term-to-lifers) are subjected to this process. Where SB391 co-authors are truthful: • The co-authors clearly want to reverse the Supreme Court ruling on In re Lawrence which: o Clearly instructed the Parole Board Commissioners and the Governor’s office who continued to break the law by their “Tough on Crime” and “No Parole” initiatives were not finding term-to –life inmates suitable for parole who HAVE demonstrated their own suitability for parole to find those individuals suitable and give them a parole date;  Reference California Penal Code Section 3041.5;  Reference California Code of Regulations, Title 15, Section 2402; and o Clearly articulated that the original crime will not change and that the original crime should not be the only determining factor to deny parole suitability. I oppose SB391. The co-authors of SB391 are not clearly connecting the two different populations. The co-authors are banking on the voting public's lack of understanding of the California Penal Code and sentencing structure and the public's general fear for what happened to Jaycee Dugard (which I agree should never have happened to anyone) for a bait-and-switch bill that focuses on a prison population that is not related to the Garrido inspired case. What the co-authors are also not clearly stating is that if SB391 were in effect during Garrido's imprisonment (and let's pretend Garrido was sentenced in California which he was NOT), SB391 would not have prevented Garrido from being released! This goes back to the FACT that Garrido would not have been given a term-to-life sentence. Garrido, under the State of California sentencing structure would have been given a determinate (or a term) sentence. This means, Garrido would not have been required to go through the parole board hearing process which SB391 targets. • Reference California Penal Codes 261 or 262 for the laws pertaining to those convicted of rape. Here are more facts: • The determinate or term sentence inmate population that are released from prison based on the set number of years given during sentencing, like Garrido, are released without having to go through the parole board hearing process. o This means that this segment of term prisoners are not required to demonstrate any level of proof of reform and or readiness to re-enter into society with minimal evidence of likelihood re-offend. o This fact is supported by the 70% recidivism rate of those released under a term sentence as provided by CDCR statistics obtained by Reporter Nancy Mullane. • The term-to-life sentenced inmate population ARE required to present their parole suitability through the parole hearing process. Suitability is based on review of parole plans and parole criteria set forth by the CDCR and the Board of Parole Hearings which include but not limited to prison behavior, accountability, etc. o Term-to-life prisoners in California are also incarcerated well beyond their minimum eligible date for parole. As such, many of these prisoners are elderly and require more medical attention. o Term-to-life prisoners who seek parole actively engage in programs and activities to turn their lives around in hopes to demonstrate their suitability and return as productive members of society. o Because the Board of Parole Hearing Commissioners and the Governor’s office consistently did not follow the California law in finding term-to-life prisoners suitable for parole based on the original crime and not on the parole suitability criteria published by the CDCR and the State of California, term-to-life prisoners sought relief through the Courts. This is why the co-authors of SB391 are going after the reversal of In re Lawrence. o These facts that demonstrate term-to-lifers are not the populations which SB391 should be targeting are supported by the .06% recidivism rate of term-to-life inmates paroled over a 21 year period as provided by CDCR statistics obtained by Reporter Nancy Mullane. What do these facts mean to the public? This is the bait-and-switch part. • BAIT: Determinate sentenced prisoners, people who commit crimes in California like Garrido, which SB391 says it was inspired by, receive set sentences and have a 7-in-10 chance of reoffending and reoffending with a more violent crime. • SWITCH: Term-to-life prisoners, the population that SB391 targets, do not re-offend at the rates being presented by the co-authors of this bill. The co-authors of SB391 are relying on public fear. When term-to-life prisoners are paroled back into the community, less than 1-in-10 term-to-lifers paroled re-offend. Additionally, over the last 21 years, not one of the term-to-lifers paroled have not committed escalated violent crimes. I oppose SB391. The California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation on June 14, 2011 released the following data: • In the past 21 years, 988 term-to-life prisoners convicted of first or second degree murder • were paroled. • Of those 988 term-to-life prisoners convicted of murder, only 13 were returned to prison • after a new criminal conviction. • Seven (7) of the thirteen (13) convictions were for crimes that are NOT • considered “serious or violent.” • Only six (6) of the thirteen (13) were convicted of “serious or violent” offenses • 1 for assault with a deadly weapon • 1 for first degree burglary • 1 for “other assault/battery” • 3 for robbery • These six “serious or violent” crimes amount to a recidivism rate of 0.6% for term-to-life • prisoners previously convicted of murder. • Zero (0) paroled term-to-life prisoners previously convicted of murder have been • convicted of first degree murder since they were paroled. • Zero (0) paroled term-to-life prisoners previously convicted of murder have been • convicted of second degree murder since they were paroled. • Zero (0) paroled term-to-life prisoners previously convicted of murder have been • convicted of voluntary manslaughter since they were paroled. • Zero (0) paroled term-to-life prisoners previously convicted of murder have been • convicted of involuntary manslaughter since they were paroled. • Zero (0) paroled term-to-life prisoners previously convicted of murder have been • convicted of kidnapping since they were paroled. • Zero (0) paroled term-to-life prisoners previously convicted of murder have been • convicted of rape since they were paroled. • Zero (0) paroled term-to-life prisoners previously convicted of murder have been • convicted of statutory rape since they were paroled. • Zero (0) paroled term-to-life prisoners previously convicted of murder have been • convicted of child molestation since they were paroled. Just during 2009 alone, 149 parolees that were not term-to-life prisoners were convicted of murder. The recidivism rate for non-murder parolees has typically hovered close to 70%. I’d like to see legislation based on the evidence and not based on fear. I’d like to see elected officials respect their constituents enough to give us the truth and not leverage sensationalized media to pass bills. We call on inmates to have accountability for their crimes and the harm they caused. I call on our legislators to have accountability, integrity, honesty, AND ethics in their actions and to reflect on the harm they are causing.

• AnnetteAugust 28, 2011 - 9:41 am

  Well said Aouie Rubio!! I too oppose SB391 for the reasons stated above. In addition, every expert panel appointed by the state to examine the California prison system has recommended that in order to reduce the recidivism rate among all prisoners is to increase the access to rehabilitation programs. This bill would funnel money into the population LEAST LIKELY to reoffend and take it away from the already scarce money available to provide programming to the 90% of other prisoners who will one day get out. Misleading, misleading, misleading...