A recent administrative shift in California grants the state's parole board the power to review inmates serving life without parole. This decision, approved by the Office of Administrative Law, has drawn sharp criticism from legal experts and victims' families.
The July 9 OAL approval of BPH authority
The California Office of Administrative Law (OAL) officially approved a shift in authority for the California Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) on July 9. This administrative move, overseen by OAL Director Kenneth J. Pogue, grants the BPH the power to review and recommend clemency for inmates serving life without parole (LWOP). This change marks a significant departure from previous protocols where such sentences were considered final and non-reviewable by administrative bodies.
The BPH is now functioning as a parallel system of reviews that mirrors standard parole hearings, but specifically for those convicted of first-degree murder with special circumstances. According to the report, this expansion of power allows an administrative agency to potentially bypass the sentencing mandates originally set by the judiciary and the legislature.
Anne Marie Schubert's challenge to the BPH's power
Anne Marie Schubert, the president and CEO of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (CLJF), has emerged as a leading critic of this administrative expansion. Schubert, a former district attorney, argues that the BPH is attempting to rewrite sentencing laws that were established through legislative action and voter-led ballot initiatives. as reported by The Daily Signal,Schubert views this as an attempt by a bureaucratic agency to usurp the role of the courts.
The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (CLJF) maintains that this new authority undermines the legal certainty provided by life-without-parole sentences. schubert suggests that by creating this review system, the board is effectively ignoring the specific mandates that define the most serious criminal offenses in California.
The threat to victims of mass shooters and child murderers
The potential release of high-risk inmates includes individuals convicted of heinous crimes such as serial murder and child abuse. The report cites specific, harrowing examples, including a Fresno mass shooter from the early 1990s who killed 10 people and a case involving the torture of a six-week-old infant. There is also concern that high-profile inmates, such as Scott Peterson, could eventually face these new review processes.
Victims' families face the prospect of enduring repeated psychological trauma through the parole hearing process . Schubert notes that the certainty of a life sentence is being replaced by a cycle of hearings that force families to relive their darkest moments to prevent the release of violent offenders .
The legality of overriding Prop 9 and Marsy's Law
Legal experts are questioning whether the BPH's new mandate violates California's existing voter-approved protections, specifically Proposition 9 and Marsy's Law. These initiatives were passed in 2008 to curb the parole syystem and prevent the prolonged suffering of crime victims. The central question is whether an administrative board can legally strike down special circumstances that mandate life without parole.
It remains unverified if the state will face immediate legal challenges to determine if these administrative rules can legally supersede the minimum sentences mandated by California voters . It is currently unclear how the California court system will respond to claims that this move is an act of "nihilism" against a law-abiding society.
Comments 0