Prisoners who have Life Without Possibility of Parole?

Question

1. What is the LWOPP Clemency Matrix (15 or 30 yrs?) before an inmate can apply for clemency?
2. Has any LWOPP ever received clemency - or their conviction overturned?
3. Is there a special form for clemency to better assist in the process?
4. Is there a special process for the CA governor to go thru to decide if he will grant clemency?
5. Has there ever been any LWOPP sentences that got turned into Life With the Possibility of Parole?
6. Do LWOPPs ever go to the parole board at all?
7. Does the Governor ever review more than just the clemency form. For instance, does he look at the central file, does he meet with the family or inmate, look at evidence, etc?
8. Does the Governor know tht most female LWOPPs are not the actual perpetrator of the crime?
9. Would anyone , like legislators, would be willing to hear from the inside as to what is needed for rehabilitation of these women?
10. Does anyone know of anywhere online where this issue is being discussed, and where?

Great answers so far~! Thanks! Am still looking for more. Much appreciated.

Answer 1

I remember this discussion from the past. No LWOPP inmate has ever received clemency. They receive no parole hearings. The only time they have ever been released has been if their conviction was overturned or modified by the courts.

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

I have nothing germane to your question, just that Cantcu is condemning Gray Davis, the former governor of California, who was recalled by a special election of the voters of California two years ago. Arnold Schwartzennegger is the governor of California. The prison population in California is near 200% of the intended maximum.

Answer 4

Talk to the ACLU!

ACLU Daily Journal Column "Taking Liberties"
Published on August 27, 2002


The well-documented explosion in the prison population, and the passage of statutes like the Three Strikes law, have reflected a "lock 'em up and throw away the key" approach to the problem of crime. For Governor Gray Davis, this approach has proven politically irresistible. The Governor has eviscerated California's parole system by implementing a "no parole" policy unprecedented in its open rejection of the statutory, constitutional, and moral underpinnings of the parole system in this state. As a result, thousands of prisoners have had their sentences of life with the possibility of parole converted to life without the possibility of parole by executive fiat, in open defiance of California statutes and basic principles of due process.

The prison system exists to protect the public and to punish offenders for their crimes. The parole system, however, also reflects another societal value - the possibility that individuals can redeem and rehabilitate themselves and become valued citizens. Since the beginning of the last century, the courts of this state have recognized the objective of the parole system: to encourage rehabilitation by providing the opportunity for release to those who no longer pose a threat to society. The linchpin of the parole determination process is also a constitutional requirement - the due process right to have an individualized determination of one's suitability for parole.

There is a statutory presumption in California that a prisoner will receive a parole date after having served the requisite number of years required to become eligible for parole, unless they are found unsuitable by the Board of Prison Terms because the release would create "an unreasonable risk of danger to society." The Governor has the power to reverse, affirm or modify any parole decision made by the BPT for any prisoner convicted of murder. Although the parole system vests a good deal of discretion in the BPT and the Governor, that discretion is limited by a specific list of factors that must be considered in determining whether a prisoner's release will pose a danger to society.

Those factors include (among others) the nature of the crime committed, the social and mental history of the individual, the individual's conduct while in prison, and the presence of realistic plans for release. The Governor has implemented his "no parole" policy by essentially ignoring the factors weighing in favor of a prisoner's suitability and focusing on the underlying crime, a factor the prisoner can do nothing about no matter how long he or she is incarcerated and no matter how exemplary the prisoner's conduct.

The BPT is not an agency that can be accused of being "soft on crime." The Board is comprised of nine members, all appointed by the Governor, who almost always have law enforcement backgrounds. The Board has conducted over 9000 parole suitability hearings for life prisoners under the Davis administration and has only found 112 prisoners suitable for parole. Davis has blocked parole for 110 of them. The only two parole grants that the Governor did not reverse both involved battered women who shot their abusers in order to save their lives and their children's lives. However, a number of other battered women ordered released by the BPT because of clear evidence of "Battered Women 's Syndrome" have had their parole dates reversed by the Governor.

Taking "tough" positions against convicted murderers is perhaps a no-lose political proposition, yet the Governor's blanket "no parole" policy has drawn sharp criticism from varied quarters. Recently, an unusually diverse group of individuals and organizations expressed their outrage at Davis' parole policy through an amici curiae brief filed by the ACLU and the law firm of Latham & Watkins. These amici include religious groups, a retired judge, retired corrections officials, and the California Coalition for Battered Women in Prison.

The religious groups, including the California Council of Churches, the Board of Rabbis of Northern California, and a number of Catholic organizations condemned Davis' "no parole" policy as rejecting the spiritual and moral values of redemption and forgiveness by destroying the only real incentive for rehabilitation and reformation. Cardinal Roger Mahony, the Archbishop of Los Angeles, conveyed these sentiments in a letter to the Governor: "I would ask you to reconsider your policy that takes away the only real incentive inmates currently have to commit themselves to genuine rehabilitation."

Three well-known corrections officials have sharply criticized the Governor's policy: the late Albert Leddy, former Chairman of the BPT; Allen Breed, former director of the California Youth Authority; and Raymond Procunier, former director of the California Department of Corrections. These experts have insisted that the Governor's elimination of incentives for improvement and good behavior increases the tension within the prisons. Breed has stated, "When a court of law sentences an offender to life in prison with the possibility of earning parole, no Governor should arbitrarily take away that hope for purely political reasons."

Recently, the focus of this controversy has moved to the California Supreme Court. Within the past fourteen months, five Superior Court judges in Santa Barbara, Sonoma, and Los Angeles have taken the extraordinary step of ruling that the Governor acted unlawfully by reversing BPT parole grants. Two of these decisions, In re Robert Rosenkrantz and In re Mark Smith, are currently before the Supreme Court. Rosenkrantz and Smith are both life prisoners convicted of second-degree murder. Rosenkrantz was 18 years old when he shot and killed a man who assaulted him and then revealed his homosexuality to his father. He has proven himself to be a model prisoner throughout his 17 years of incarceration. Smith, whose record shows he was convicted as an aider and abettor of a murder, is terminally ill and incapacitated. Smith's physical condition alone shows that he is no longer a threat to society. In his written decisions denying parole to Rosenkrantz and Smith, the Governor egregiously mischaracterized the nature of their crimes and ignored the factors weighing overwhelmingly in favor of their suitability.

The Governor's disregard for the parole laws is coupled with his incredible legal position before the Supreme Court that his parole reversals are not subject to judicial review. The importance of review by an independent judiciary is reflected by the courageous decisions by these five lower court judges. In Rosenkrantz' case, Los Angeles Superior Court Presiding Judge Paul Gutman found that the Governor has a blanket policy of denying parole to inmates who committed murders regardless of the individual circumstances, and that this policy violated due process and demonstrated "actual bias" against an entire class. Sonoma Superior Court Judge Elliot Daum held that the Governor had clearly implemented an unlawful "no parole policy": "One would have to, in Inspector Clousseau like fashion, pay studious inattention to the obvious to conclude otherwise." And Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Rick Brown concluded that there was no evidence supporting the Governor's parole reversal: "Petitioner…richly deserved his sentence of 15 years to life for the second-degree murder….But he just as richly deserves the opportunity to demonstrate that he can perform as well on parole as he has in prison."

While the Governor has final parole review power, he is not above the law. A "no parole" policy for murderers may provide a perfect sound bite in an election campaign, but it violates California law and the Due Process Clause. The Davis administration's "no parole" policy is a moral, social, and constitutional affront.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California
1663 Mission Street, Suite 460, San Francisco, CA 94103
[phone]

ALso go here!