California prisoners serving life terms face harsh penalties for “circumventing or avoiding” restitution.
Since 2022, Board of Parole Hearings commissioners have been rescinding or denying parole to persons, based on the newly imposed terminology.
At the heart of the debate is whether BPH commissioners are legally justified in rescinding or denying parole grants because family members sent money to another incarcerated person’s account. During a January 2024 Rules Violation Report Hearing, a senior hearing officer stated, “Any incarcerated person whose family member or friend places money on another prisoner’s trust account is guilty of circumventing or avoiding restitution.”
Although the practice has been going on with the “silent acquiesence of CDCR for decades, the Life Support Alliance questions whether it’s legally supportable to deny parole.
“Some recent candidates have reported (that) the BPH panel they faced discussed restitution evasion in depth and found the individual’s participation did not rise to the level of signaling dangerous criminal thinking or activity,” stated the LSA newsletter.
Standards that are required of an incarcerated person have been established within both the CDCR California Code of Regulations Title 15 and the Department Operations Manual.
“I was found suitable for parole because I did not pose a dangerousness or unreasonable risk to public safety, so what does my family putting money on someone else’s account have to do with me being a threat to public safety?” said Victor Earl. “Not only that, but, I’m paying my restitution.”
As of the writing of this article, no language has been uncovered that prohibits an incarcerated person’s family from placing monies in another prisoners’ trust account.
Gabriel Petek, an analyst for the Legal Analyst’s Office, emphasized that “the parole hearing process affords BPH commissioners and other key actors in the BPH process overly broad discretion.”
Indigent prisoners owing restitution, which usually ranges from $200 up to $10,000, may never reach the threshold of fulfilling their restitution obligation. That burden subsequently falls squarely upon the shoulders of family and friends.
“BPH is basically saying that the taxpayers would prefer I spend an additional three years in prison, at a cost of $130,000 a year, rather release [me] to finish paying a $3,000 debt, and my restitution will still not be paid off,” said J. Milo. “I don’t understand how the Board can claim that I am thinking criminally, when there is nothing that says my family can’t put money anywhere they want to.”
Said Esteban B: “I could pay my restitution off in several months with real wages on the streets, but you want to deny me parole because my family put money on someone else’s account so that I can eat. Make that make sense.”
The premise that circumventing or avoiding restitution falls within the realm of “dangerousness or threat to public safety” is beginning to raise legitimate penalogical concerns, according to the Life Support Alliance.
It is the duty of BPH commissioners and deputy commissioners to oversee the process of ascertaining whether an incarcerated person meets the requirements for parole suitability.
The foundation BPH stands upon in support of their position to deny or rescind eligible persons parole, for the purpose of “circumventing/ avoiding restitution” is founded on the following codes:
- CCR Section 3192 – “an incarcerated person’s right to inherit, own, sell, or convey real and/or personal property {does not} include the right to possess such property within the institutions/facilities…”
- California Penal Code 155.5 – Disposal of Personal Property to Avoid Fine or Restitution … “any defendant who is ordered to pay any fine or restitution…sells, conveys, assigns, or conceals his or her personal property with the intent to lessen or impair his or her financial ability to pay…is guilty of a felony.” The United States Supreme Court has added, “It is a basic principle of due process that any enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined.”
But penal codes 1202.4(a) (1) and 1202.4(11) only require the incarcerated, not their family members, to to pay restitution.
“How can the commissioners logically justify taking my date because my family has put money on my friend’s account or even when someone has put money on my account? I don’t even owe restitution. How do I pose a dangerousness to public safety?” asks Adam M. Said J. Milo: “I have yet to read anything that supports what the commissioners are doing,”
One new law that could partly resolve the issue is AB 1186, also called The REPAIR Act, which focuses on juvenile restitution. The purpose of the REPAIR Act is to eliminate the burden on the families of juveniles.
