California Supreme Court Ruling... (Gang Of 4's Latest Judicial Activism Outrage Alert)

Los Angeles Times ^ | 8/22/2008 | Maura Dolan and Michael Rothfield

[goldstategop]

The California Supreme Court made it easier Thursday for prison inmates to win parole despite a governor's objections, ruling that a woman who fatally shot and stabbed another woman with a potato peeler should remain free.

The 4 to 3 ruling, written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, could affect nearly 1,000 parole cases now on appeal. Lawyers on both sides said it was the first time in recent history that the state high court ruled in favor of a prisoner in a parole case.

The decision upheld the release of Sandra Davis Lawrence, who spent nearly 24 years in prison for shooting and stabbing her lover's wife in a jealous rage. The state parole board had approved her release four times since 1993, but three governors, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, overturned the board's decisions.

In denying her parole, Schwarzenegger cited the "shockingly vicious" attack and Lawrence's use of various aliases to avoid arrest for 11 years after the murder.

An appeals court said Schwarzenegger's denial was not supported by evidence that she remained dangerous.

In Thursday's ruling, George said there was "overwhelming" evidence of Lawrence's rehabilitation while in prison and her suitability for parole. She earned two degrees in prison, learned trades that included plumbing and data processing, was president of the inmates' Toastmasters Club, worked as a library porter and tennis coach, cofounded a tutoring program and remained discipline free. She apologized repeatedly for her crime.

The court said decisions on whether to grant parole to prisoners who received life sentences should be based on whether the inmate would pose a danger to the public if released. The court's action marks a departure from a 2002 ruling, which held that the crime itself could justify denial.

[goldstategop]

California Chief Justice Ronald George and the new Gang Of 4's raw judicial activism has been breathtaking. Same sex marriage, denial of religious conscience for doctors... and now parole for murderers! Its like the bad reincarnation of Chief Justice Rose Bird and her colleagues!

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[SwankyC]

fatally shot and stabbed another woman with a potato peeler

Would absolutely LOVE to see this peeler.... I woulda swore that Journalism was actually a degree. I guess it's optional nowadays.

[B Knotts]

I hope Californians will vote not to retain George, and any others of this group of liberals who are on the ballot this time.

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

That’s the old model peeler. The new one is full auto!

[Czar]

Marked for later.

[Owl558]

Here’s what the California State Constitution says about the govenor’s parole denial powers:

“(b) No decision of the parole authority of this State with respect to the granting, denial, revocation, or suspension of parole of a person sentenced to an indeterminate term upon conviction of murder shall become effective for a period of 30 days, during which the
Governor may review the decision subject to procedures provided by statute. The Governor may only affirm, modify, or reverse the decision of the parole authority on the basis of the same factors which the parole authority is required to consider. The Governor shall report to the Legislature each parole decision affirmed, modified, or reversed, stating the pertinent facts and reasons for
the action.”

Apparently, he must consider the same factors as the parole board. Not sure what those are exactly.

[goldstategop]

Ronald George seems to think murder is a crime that allows the possibility of rehabilitation! The man is a complete idiot. He's lost all common sense! Even Red Arnold, whom I do not agree with 99% of the time, did get it. Murderers should be executed, not enjoy the freedom of society.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[FastCoyote]

“ruling that a woman who fatally shot and stabbed another woman with a potato peeler should remain free.”

When potatoe peelers are outlawed, only outlaws will own potatoe peelers?

I wonder what caliber it was? Perhaps a Saturday Night Potatoe Peeler.

[SwankyC]

...with laser sites so you dont miss the tater - or neighbor in this case.

[goldstategop]

What George and his fellow liberals are saying is murderers should be rewarded, not punished for carving up a human being like a slab of roast beef! These people affront me both with their lack of moral absolutes and their delight in affronting society's values!

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[Havok]

When is that earthquake gonna hit????

phuk Kalifornia.

[Lurking Libertarian]

What George and his fellow liberals are saying is murderers should be rewarded, not punished for carving up a human being like a slab of roast beef! These people affront me both with their lack of moral absolutes and their delight in affronting society's values!

This article is highly misleading.

For years, California's parole board has been releasing murderers who show evidence of rehabilitation; the Governors (whether Dem. or Rep.) routinely veto those decisions; and the lower courts, in nearly every case, overturn the Governor and support the parole board. This has been the status quo for years.

The California Supreme Court finally agreed to hear the issue, and reviewed two cases, both of which were decided the same day. In one, they agreed with the Governor and overturned the parole board; in the other, they agreed with the lower court which had overturned the Governor. The net result of the decisions is that the grounds the Governor can rely on for overturning parole boards are actually strengthened from what the lowwer courts have been doing for thee last dozen years or so, and fewer murderers are going to be released.

[Jubal Harshaw]

Here's the California court paraphrase of what factors the Governor can consider when deciding on parole:

To assess whether a life prisoner will pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society if released from prison, the Board and the Governor consider lists of suitability and unsuitability factors. Positive suitability factors include (1) the absence of a juvenile record, (2) a stable social history, (3) signs of remorse, (4) the motivation for the crime was significant life stress, (5) battered woman syndrome, (6) no history of violent crime, (7) age, (8) realistic plans for the future, and (9) institutional behavior. (§ 2402, subd. (d).) Negative unsuitability factors include (1) the commitment offense and whether it was committed “in an especially heinous, atrocious or cruel manner,” (2) a previous record of violence, (3) an unstable social history, (4) sadistic sexual offenses, (5) psychological factors, and (6) serious misconduct while incarcerated. (§ 2402, subd. (c).)

So, THE LAW AS WRITTEN states that the governor can consider the commitment offense in determining suitability for parole.

So here's the court's reasoning (not supported by the law, in my opinion, but supported by the court) to modify that power of the Governor:

The Governor concluded that one factor alone -- the “especially heinous, atrocious or cruel manner” of the commitment offense -- outweighs all the positive suitability factors found by the Board as well as the absence of any other unsuitability factor. Although the commitment offense alone may constitute a sufficient basis for denying parole (In re Rosenkrantz, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 683; In re Dannenberg, supra, 34 Cal.4th at pp. 1094-1095), that is true only in a case where the particularly egregious nature of the commitment offense reasonably suggests that “the prisoner who committed it is presently too dangerous” to be released on parole. (In re Danenberg, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 1080, emphasis added.) This is just another way of saying that a 25-year-old commitment offense may not be a reliable predictor of an inmate’s current dangerousness, particularly where the prisoner has not engaged in any violence while incarcerated. (Biggs v. Terhune, supra, 334 F.3d 910, 916-917; Irons v. Carey, supra, 479 F.3d 658, 665; Rosenkrantz v. Marshall (C.D.Cal. 2006) 444 F.Supp.2d 1063, 1084-1085; In re Lee (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1412; In re Elkins (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 475, 496.)

In my opinion, what happened here it that the court replaced the Governor's legally-required judgment regarding the factors that the Governor must consider, and replaced it's own. If the court can do so, without a law authorizing same, then why have a Governor, or, indeed, laws, at all?

[Lurker]

then why have a Governor, or, indeed, laws, at all?

Why indeed.

L

[ChildOfThe60s]

The real issue here is the court usurping the constitution authority of the executive branch.

The question that comes to my mind is, what is the appropriate response of the executive branch? It would seem to me that at some point the exec branch would (should?) refuse to carry out the dictates on the judicial branch on the grounds that it has exceed its constitutional authority.

It seems to me there is some historical precedent for that. Any serious history buffs out there?

[freekitty]

I wonder when CA is going to decide enough is enough and boot these justices.

[Owl558]

“The real issue here is the court usurping the constitution authority of the executive branch.”

I agree wholeheartedly. That’s why I posted the Calif. constitutional definition of what those powers are (or were).

[CounterCounterCulture]

why have a Governor, or, indeed, laws, at all?

Indeed. All we need is a judicial oligarchy.