LA Times Editorial -Parole Consideration for LWOP Sentences

The following editorial appeared in the Los Angeles Times and is written by the Times Editorial Board. The editorial discusses Senate Bill 94 (Dave Cortese - D15). SB 94 would allow parole review and a fresh look for some pre-1990 cases, excludes violent crimes and requires judicial and gubernatorial approval. This reform could cut prison costs and update sentencing while still prioritizing public safety and respecting victims through every step of the process. It also helps to restore hope, a powerful tool to incentivize rehabilitation.

Excerpts from the editorial appear below.



*****

California’s crime rate began a historic plunge in the early 1990s and has fallen ever since, except for some small spikes, including during the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet it took more than a decade until legislation reflected the trend.

Now the crime-and-punishment debate has shifted again. Republican politicians generally want to end the reform era and return to tougher punishments. Democrats are split between continuing reform and retrenchment.

That’s the background of a heated debate over state Senate Bill 94, a worthy proposal by Sen. Dave Cortese (D-San José) to review sentences for several hundred aging California prisoners who were sent to prison for life without parole before June 5, 1990, in the pre-reform era.

SB 94 follows a sensible path of recent laws and U.S. Supreme Court decisions that permit parole hearings for most people sentenced to life without parole for crimes they committed as juveniles.

The law would not directly resentence or release any of them. It would create a multistep process that would let them make their cases for resentencing, but only after they have spent at least 25 years in prison. Serial killers, cop killers and sex offenders would not be eligible.

For the rest, judges would hear the requests and would have full discretion to reject them. If a parole hearing is granted and the Board of Parole hearings finds an offender suitable for parole — because he or she has presented ample evidence of remorse and rehabilitation over decades in prison — the governor could still reject release.

Most eligible offenders are now in their 60s and 70s, well beyond the prime age for violent crime. For many, more than a half-century will have passed between their crimes and their eligibility to seek resentencing.

Still, in our system even the most rational sentencing reform takes a back seat to partisan politics. Republicans and Democrats are vying for control of Congress, and their battles over criminal justice measures are each fought with any eye on a handful of races in the House of Representatives that are up for grabs, as each side uses crime fears to get their voters to the polls.

The bill will fail if it doesn’t pass the Assembly by Saturday. It would be a shame to allow a safe and cost-saving reform like this one to die in that partisan fight.

*****

You can read the full editorial "Parole consideration for those sentenced to life behind bars 35 years ago? It's the right thing to do" at the Los Angeles Times website.