The new lifer parole criteria in California leaves some room for more legal challenges to parole denials:

Based on a Supreme Court ruling from January 2005, this is now the offcial guideline for the board:

“Under normal circumstances, the panel or the Board shall set a release date unless it determines that the gravity of the crime (offense), or the timing and gravity of current or past convictions, requires a more lengthy period of incarceration to ensure public safety.”

However, the Board is clinging to the public safety part and saying the orginial crime can constitute that public safety risk.

But -- it now has to cite aggravating factors to back up that claim:

“The Dannenberg court also noted that when the Board of Prison Term bases a finding that an inmate, who is sentenced to an indeterminate life term, is unsuitable for parole on the circumstances of the commitment offense, it must cite some evidence of aggravating facts beyond the minimum elements of the crime.”

So parole attorneys will begin to use this to challenge the board.

(links no longer valid)
The complete Dannenberg ruling is here:
http://www.bpt.ca.gov/Dannenberg.pdf

The Board of Parole Hearings web site is here:
http://www.bpt.ca.gov/parole_process.asp

There is more news coming from the Office of the Inspector General’s office on the horrendous backlog of lifer cases, so stay tuned!

-- Q

“The Dannenberg court also noted that when the Board of Prison Term bases a finding that an inmate, who is sentenced to an indeterminate life term, is unsuitable for parole on the circumstances of the commitment offense, it must cite some evidence of aggravating facts beyond the minimum elements of the crime.”

Okay, so what does this mean, exactly? Does the parole board need to elaborate what it is about the crime that makes it heinous or do they need to come up with proof as to why the lifer is still a threat to society today (as in bad psychological report or write-ups for violent behaviour and things like that)?

The reason I'm asking is that one of my pen pals keeps getting denied parole and the board uses the heinousness of the crime as the reason (I'd rather call it 'excuse' but that's my personal opinion) and elaborate what it is about the crime they find make it heinous. Now their reasons are valid, only the things they mention are mainly things a co-defendant did. I'll never understand how they can lock someone up for things someone else did but that's American law for ya apparently.

So can anyone tell me if this new rule is going to make a difference for my pen pal? I don't dare to get my hopes up...

Yap Yap,
I had this phrase thrown at me five hearings in a row. I always wanted to question them with logic, but did not, knowing that it would be seen as antagonistic. The Heinousness of the crime is an unchanging factor. Now that I am out, does that mean that my crime is no longer as heinous as it was the 5 times they denied me? No. It is every bit as heinous. However, none of them will admit such a logical thing. The Dannenberg court says that they can't use this as the sole reason for denial, yet they still do. It is a sad state of affairs right now.

So nothing changes? I already figured. Bummer :(

Qwerty, those links are broken. Can you repost? Thank you!!!