The California Supreme Court has accepted several cases for review to determine when, if ever, the fact that a person committed a murder in the distant past no longer supplies reliable evidence that he is currently dangerous.
Lifers who are eligible for parole and who have appeared before the Board of Parole Hearings are well acquainted with the Board’s use of their commitment offense as the primary reason to deny parole. Lifers who have been found suitable for parole and have had their suitability finding reversed by the governor know that their crime, usually committed decades ago, still matters.
We have to live with our decisions. We cannot turn back the clock or hold back the years and undo the wrong we have done to ourselves and others. For those of us who have taken a life, the pain we have caused is irrevocable. No amount of positive programming can fill the hole we left in the family of the victim of our crime. We can show our repentance in the path we choose and the decisions we make now.
Courts in California are striving to achieve a balance between the immutable harm done to the victim and their loved ones and to the requirements of the parole statutes, which state that parole should be the rule rather than the rare exception.
Many lifers now see themselves as victims of injustice. Justice is not an abstract principle. It is relational. Justice promotes good relations between people and groups of people. Injustice breaks down good relations and breeds anger, hostility and violence.
The concern for justice should not be confined to just those of us who must appear before the Board to gain an opportunity to rejoin free society. In 1963, the Rev. Martin Luther King. Jr. wrote the “Letter from Birmingham City Jail.” He was responding to eight white clergymen in Alabama opposed to civil disobedience. They feared his actions would incite civil disturbances.
He wrote: “I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Moreover, I am cognizant of the inter-relatedness of all communities and states. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all.” Two quotes are engraved on the wall of the museum of Jewish Heritage. “Remember, Never forget,” and, “There is hope for your future. “ As lifers we can never forget why we have spent the past years in person. But if we as a society believe in redemption and that people can rehabilitate themselves then a real hope and future must be extended to those who have complied with the requirements for parole. In Cappiello v. New York State Board of Parole 800 N.Y.S. 343, 2004 WL 3112628, Judge Wetzel wrote:
“Murder is obviously a very serious, tragic crime involving this loss of a human life… Each day, the court interacts with defendants accused and convicted of terrible murders, as well as the families of the victims.Those families come to court, listen to the evidence, weep at the crime scene photos, and speak passionately about their loss at the sentencing of the convicted defendants. There is no greater agony than that of a family member of a murder victim, and this court acknowledges and empathizes with that pain, It is a pain which does not abate over the years and nothing can become to relieve that suffering. The only variable that can change in this situation is the defendant… [some] defendants…take advantage of the opportunities in prison for rehabilitation, move on in their lives to do service in the community, to make amends for their actions, and to make contributions to their families and to society. Their achievements, as great as they are, will never erase the horrendous brutality of the past, nor can it ever fully compensate society for the damage which has been done. However, in a system which is premised on the hope and possibility of rehabilitation, and a statutory system which mandates a serious, rational and meaningful evaluation of the statutory criteria, we must allow an individual who has taken advantage of opportunities to rehabilitate himself to move beyond a horrific act of many years ago and to rejoin society to contribute according to his ability.”
The arbitrary practice of the Board in reciting the facts of the murder at a parole hearing and using that as the basis to deny parole has been exposed primarily through habeas petitions filed in pro per. The unselfishness of inmates assisting others for the common good has resulted in favorable state court orders in cases like In re Elkins, In re Viet Mike Ngo, and from the Federal District Court in Jerome Thomas of Habeas Corpus.
Perseverance and commitment are required to gain release through habeas petitions. The Attorney General routinely appeals virtually every favorable ruling from the lower court. Misguided and sometimes selfish advice comes from fellow Lifers and selfproclaimed jailhouse lawyers counseling individuals not to file. Many Lifers have been dissuaded from seeking relief from the courts against the Board or Governor for parole denials. An ancient principle from the Torah admonishes us not to put a stumbling block before the blind. Lifers need to become informed about the legal process and the pertinent cases dealing with parole issues. Through respect for other viewpoints and approaches, Lifers have been able to bring issues relating to parole before California State and Federal Courts. Continued success will come from applying wisdom as Hillel states: “If I am not for myself, who is for me. If I am only for myself, who am I.
