Being found suitable for parole as a lifer in the state of California does not mean one is automatically released.
The lifers’ suitability for parole is considered after they have served their base term. But as a few lifers at San Quentin have experienced, being deemed “suitable” does not mean they will be released.
Mike Villanueva recently discovered this after his seventh parole hearing.
He was found suitable for parole by a two-member panel after 20 years in prison, but Gov. Jerry Brown bounced his case for a new hearing by a 12-member panel. His crime: conspiracy to commit second-degree murder.
This put Villanueva in limbo, uncertain of his new parole date or whether he would be released on parole.
In 1988, voters passed Proposition 89, which amended the California Constitution. This amendment grants the governor the right to review all decisions made by the parole board, which he appoints. Proposition 89 gave the governor the right to reverse some parole board decisions and remand others back to the full board, as in Villaneueva’s case.
For non-murder cases, the governor has 120 days to remand the case back to the full board for review, called an En Banc hearing. The governor has this same right to refer murder cases back to the full board, and an additional 30 days to reverse parole decisions of convicted murders.
Villanueva said when he was found suitable, he believed the 120-day governor’s review period was just a formality, but when he found out the governor referred his case to En Banc, he felt hurt. “I was hurt because I showed the board I was suitable and the governor was not acknowledging this fact,” Villanueva said, adding, “Instead the process seemed political to me.”
California is one of four states that give the governor the ultimate say in lifer’s parole decisions. The board is bound by the law in making a decision on a lifer’s parole suitability, but the governor’s parole policies usually play a role in how these laws are interpreted.
“The process ultimately puts parole in the hands of a politician, (and) as a result, the decision is often influenced by public opinion,” Villanueva says.
In the 1980s, Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis decided to let inmate Willie Horton leave prison temporarily through a state furlough program, which allowed prisoners to go home on certain weekends. Horton committed a heinous rape while out on a furlough. As a result of his decision, Dukakis was labeled “soft on crime” and cost him votes in the 1988 presidential election.
In his book Thinking About Crime, author Michael Tonry argues that legislation is based on public opinion, which is usually misinformed because of sensationalized cases in the media, like the Horton case.
The sensationalism of the Horton case sent a clear message to all politicians that the voting public holds politicians responsible for future crimes of released criminals, and reinforced favorable attitudes toward tough-on-crime policies – such as Proposition 89.
Danny Linn knows the power of Proposition 89 first hand.
Linn was convicted of second-degree murder, and sentenced to 15 years-to-life in 1998. He was found suitable for parole during his first parole hearing nearly 15 years later, and would have been released around March 2, 2013. But on the 29th day of the final governor’s review period, Jerry Brown denied his parole date.
Linn says the whole process was like an emotional rollercoaster.
“What I don’t understand is why the state spends so much money on paying parole board members and psychologists to make determinations about parole, and one person can come behind them and reverse the decision on speculation alone,” Linn says.
Linn says he is staying positive for his next parole hearing in August or September. “I’m not looking at this situation as a setback,” Linn says, “Instead, I will continue to do the work on myself that will eventually lead me out of prison.”
Villanueva’s case was heard by all 12 members of the parole board at his En Banc hearing on March 19. His suitability was affirmed. Villanueva said he was relieved by this decision, but he believes the process should be reformed.
Villanueva says he believe that a review period of a decision that was made in a few hours is OK, but also the determination of review should be taken out of the governor’s hands. He envisions a system where everyone will get the same level of review by paid career civil servants instead of being subject to the review of a politician who has political interests to consider.
“Although I believe I was treated fairly by Brown’s appointees, our legal system would be improved if it were changed from one that appoints parole board members, to a system where a person would apply to become a career civil servant as a parole board member.”
No such plan is scheduled in the immediate future for the state of California.
