In May of this year, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) was ordered to reduce its prison population due to severe overcrowding (see: Supreme Court Orders California to Reduce Prison Population by up to 37,000 Inmates, Reentry Central News 5-31-11). Now a new report, written by Robert Weisberg, Debbie A. Mukamal, and Jordan D. Segall for the Stanford Criminal Justice Center, reflects on a concern that a part of the problem of overcrowding is the result of individuals being "recycled" through the CDCR after their parole was revoked.
Life in Limbo : An Examination of Parole Release for Prisoners Serving Life Sentences with the Possibility of Parole in California, offers that the mandatory parole system created by the 1976 Determinate Sentencing Law played a big part in creating prison overcrowding, adds that scant attention has been paid to those serving life sentences with out the possibility of parole under "older indeterminate sentencing principles.” This population, Life in Limbo reports, made up a fifth of California state prisoners as of 2010. The report further states that:
More than 32,000 inmates comprise the "lifer" category, i.e., inmates who are eligible to be considered for release from prison after screening by the parole board to determine when and under what conditions. (This group of prisoners is distinct from the much smaller population of 4,000 individuals serving life sentences without the possibility of parole).
The size of the lifer population has increased as a percentage of the overall California prison population from eight percent in 1990 to 20 percent in 2010. Most individuals serving life sentences with the possibility of parole are serving time for first- or second-degree murder.
In line with the increase in the size of the lifer population, the Board of Parole Hearings has steadily increased the number of lifer suitability hearings it has conducted in the last 30 years, representing a 745 percent increase from 1980 to 2010. The majority of the increase has occurred in the last decade.
A lifer now stands an 18 percent chance of being granted parole by the Board of Parole Hearings. The grant rate has fluctuated over the last 30 years— nearing zero percent at times and never arising above 20 percent. The change in the rate could be attributed to changes in characteristics of the inmates appearing in a particular year, changes in the composition of the board, and court clarification of standards the Board should use in determining suitability or other factors.
In addition, while an inmate's chance of being granted parole has increased in the last two years, the length of time he or she must wait for a subsequent hearing when denied parole has also increased (though there is a legal mechanism by which an inmate can petition the Board to advance his/her hearing by a showing of, among other things, changed circumstances).
The Governor’s rate in reversing decisions made by the Board has fluctuated over the last two decades, reflecting the individual policy orientation of the particular Governor in office.
As with the size of the lifer population and the number of hearings conducted by the Board, the number of parole decisions made by the Governor involving murder cases has increased by 1754 percent in the last 20 years, with the bulk of the increase occurring after 2000 (when the total number of suitability hearings conducted by the Board increased).
The likelihood of a lifer convicted of murder being granted parole by the Board and not having the decision reversed by the Governor is—and always has been—slim. In 2010, the probability was approximately six percent.
A major—perhaps the major—question in public debate about the current lifer population is their risk of recidivating. While data is limited, interim information suggests that the incidence of commission of serious crimes by recently released lifers has been minuscule, and as compared to the larger inmate population, recidivism risk—at least among those deemed suitable for release by both the Board and the Governor—is minimal.
|
