January 14, 2011 | 11:55 AM | By

Why are so few ‘lifers’ paroled?

FILED UNDER: Corrections, Board of Parole Hearings, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Lifers, Parole

Rupert Ganzer

In California, there are two versions of the criminal sentence “life in prison.” One offers the possibility of parole, the other does not. Similarly, there are two ways to get out of prison on parole. The average inmate serves his or her predetermined sentence and when let out, automatically becomes a parolee. For someone in prison on a sentence of “life with the possibility of parole,” the inmate must be found eligible for release by the Board of Parole Hearings. And apparently, that just doesn’t happen too often.

According to the Capitol Weekly:

  • There are 33,200 lifers in prison right now, many of whom are eligible for consideration for parole;
  • Out of 180 lifers granted release dates in the first quarter of 2010, 3 were actually paroled;
  • Largely due to the growing and aging lifer population, the number of over-55 inmates has doubled since 2000;
  • It costs 2-3 times more to incarcerate an elderly inmate than a young one;
  • Inmates over 55 present a “relatively low risk of reoffending and show high rates of parole success.”

So if there’s concern over the cost of housing this aging, relatively low-risk population, why aren’t more lifers paroled when they become eligible? For an answer, let’s look at USD Law Professor Shaun Martin’s examination of the case of Kuldip Kler, convicted of second-degree murder in 1989 and sentenced to 15 years to life in prison:

“He commits two minor disciplinary offenses during his early years in prison but is otherwise a model prisoner.  Even though he’s a Sikh and there are no programs for his religion in prison, he takes forty-plus religion and bible study classes, and does a massive number of self-help and counseling programs; e.g., 75 (!) between 2005 and 2007. And I know it’s a stereotype, but he also does incredibly good ceramics work as a prisoner. Which he then donates to the San Joaquin County Child Abuse Prevention Council, which raised over $15,000 selling them.

Kler has consistently admitted his guilt since 1997. Every single mental health evaluation says he’s got an incredibly small chance of reoffending. His evaluation also says he “has a strong support system of family and friends, which give him an excellent chance of success.”

In short, he’s an outstanding candidate for release when he comes up for parole in 2007, having at that point spent 18 years in prison on a sentence of 15 to life.

But here’s the rub. The murder he committed was of a 10-month old.  His daughter.  Who he brutally hit to death in a fit of rage when she began crying at 3:00 a.m.

No way the Parole Board’s going to grant parole to someone like that. Model prisoner or no. The sentence may formally say 15 to life. But based solely on the crime itself, no way he’s getting let out at the early stage of being eligible. So, predictably, the Parole Board denies parole notwithstanding all the totally favorable facts and the extremely low likelihood of future violence.”

Kler appealed his denial of parole in court and a judge sent the case back to the parole board, with instructions to grant him parole. The parole board did so in 2009, only to have their decision overruled by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who cited the heinous nature of the original crime and Kler’s “lack of insight.” Kler again appealed to a court, which reversed the Governor’s decision and Kler was paroled in October of 2010, after 21 years in prison.

The court, in overturning the Governor’s decision, said the facts Schwarzenegger relied upon ”are not supported by the record, nor do they lead to the conclusion that (Kler) would be an unreasonable risk of violence if released on parole.”

“So,” Martin writes, “Kler gets out.  But it’s several years later, and the ‘responsibility’ of the judiciary, not an elected politician.”

Vanessa Nelson the co-founder of the Life Support Alliance–an advocacy group for “fair, unbiased consideration” of parole for lifers–says the primary reason for not letting out more lifers is politics. “No one wants to be the person who let a murderer out of prison,” she says. And the parole board, which is largely made of up of former and aspiring politicians, she says, has every interest being “tough on crime.”

But why have a sentence that calls for “the possibility of parole,” Nelson says, if the horrific nature of the crime means the person should never be let out, no matter how much they change?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=689913316 B Cayenne Bird

    The parole board, like most government agencies, is stacked with right wing punishers in order to protect the financial interests of law enforcement labor unions. The legislature operates off the dollars generated by the human bondage industry, which is California’s largest. There is almost no justice in the court system, and it is very likely that simple sentences can turn into life sentences in prison due to inhumane practices and intolerable conditions. The passage of the unconstitutional Marcy’s law (Prop 9), which was misrepresented to the public by Republican politicians, blocks parole even further. That and the lack of a loud enough public outcry against these factors are but a few reasons why people who deserve it aren’t getting paroled.

  • Anonymous

    One would hope that people, once grown and in a position of power over lives, would have OUTgrown the childish quality of needing acceptance – caring what others think. Isn’t there anyone out there who can stand alone on a true conviction, based on balanced, intellegent, visible facts? We have irresponsible, overgrown, selfish numbskulls making decisions that affect hearts and lives of the masses. When are we going to stop letting these people get away with playing games in office?

  • beentheredonethat

    After having served 27 years and some months on a 15 to Life sentence, I know how this man feels. One thing that I had to learn when dealing with the Board of Prison Hearings is that when that tail of “Life” is tacked onto your sentence, that’s pretty much what it means and there are no amount of groups or admitting responsibility that is going to change the Boards minds. They walk into that hearing room knowing who is staying and who will get found suitable.

  • beentheredonethat

    After 14 Board hearings and a governors denial on one of the suitabilities, I was finally released in 2008. You are right, it is all politics but with society being as biased as it is, they are not going to change it, that would mean that they would have to be responsible. Mr. Kler actually served less time than most convicted of such an offense. I wish him luck in his new life.

  • Marisa

    Thank you so much for raising this important topic. As pointed out by the Kler case, the courts are getting better at recognizing and remedying the illegal activity of the Board and the Governor in denying parole, but a lot of time, money, and other resources has to be spent before the courts can order people released. It’s very frustrating and disappointing that at this time, when California faces both a budget crisis and a prison over-crowding crisis, the Board and the Governor can’t follow the law and release eligible lifers.

  • Frankfacts

    This is a good story, except for three glaring omissions. KALW News is guilty of these omissions as was the Los Angeles Times in their January 16th Sunday front page edition. And, of course, right-wing conservative and libertarian commentators, such as “The John and Ken Show” in the Los Angeles-Orange county area, are always prejudice and incorrect by not telling the entire story.

    The three major omissions are the following:
    1. Hundreds of women, especially black women, in prison wrongly-convicted of murder, manslaugther, or “terrorist threats” charges, especially before 1998, when the facts show SELF-DEFENSE, fear of one’s life through Battered Woman’s Syndrome, and DEFENCE OF ONE’S CHILDREN. These women should never have been even arrested, let alone convicted and sent to prison.
    2. Despite excellant psychological and drug counseling programs, such as Delancey Street and Kazi House, thousands of historically throughout their lives NON-VIOLENT people were given life-plus-parole sentences under California’s Three Strikes Law. The same state governors won’t allow them out of prison, either.
    3. People, men and women, who are COMPLETELY INNOCENT of any wrongdoing, and are wrongly-convicted of crimes. Despite factual evidence, the jury and/or judge didn’t, or refused, to hear, these same governors also refused to meet with women’s groups, county public defenders, and others to see the new evidence.

    And—there is this major problem, which has been on-going thoughout the 13 years that I have been a member of the N.A.A.C.P.

    We have leaders, elected into powerful positions of government and/or influence, who refuse to do their jobs—and one in particular: Alice Huffman, President of the California State Conference N.A.A.C.P.—who fanatically and viciously refuses and even stops all plans and operations to help these people in prison—even help free wrongly-conivcted black women. AND YET, PEOPLE “ON OUR SIDE” CONTINUES TO VOTE AND SUPPORT THESE SELFISH THOUGHTLESS OPPORTUNISTS. Somewhat less disgusting, but just as serious, are all of the eight elected black state legislators who continue to allow this injustice to continue. (Five years ago, we tried to get Huffman to have the Governor recommend two activist to be placed on the state parole board: James “Jim” Benson, one of the founders of Citizens Against Violent Crime, the organization that wrote and pushed for Proposition 66 to amend the three strikes law, and Veronica Obergon, Latina activist partly responsible for helping to free her own wrongly-convicted aunt from prison. President Huffman, after 11 months of stalling and ignoring us, refused to recommend these people, and also stopped all N.A.A.C.P. efforts to help women in prison.

    So long as we continue to support these Amos-and-Andy / Kingfish, Uncle Tom; Aunt Tomolina clown black people in power, we actually deserve what we get.

    Frank Mitchell, III. – National Association for Equal Justice in America

  • Frank Mitchell, III.

    This is Frank Mitchell, III. (Frankfacts). Read my statement, which was posted just before you came on-line. Notwithstanding your particular offense, and whether the victim was harmless and/or innocent; this was “mutual combat” or self-defense; or this was an accident—you were in prison for 27 years because your fellow citizens were not concerned enough to stop voting for represenatives who didn’t want to do their jobs; had ulterior motives; and were just as corrupt and criminal as “they believe you were” supposed to be. You—more so than anyone else—must educate those lost in darkness.

  • Canteenkenny

    Your rant has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this piece. Off the soap box, please.

  • Canteenkenny

    this is a good piece, thanks to the author. Two things come to mind reading this. First, we need some reason to be injected into this debate, and much less public opinion. Sadly, the voters frequently contradict themselves. They vote for more prisoners (three strikes) and immediately vote against prisons. We need tough legislators who can think for themselves, and less concern for what the public reaction to releasing prisoners will be. Second, when did parole become mandatory? Is not a life sentence meant to be life in prison? The expectation that one should only serve half of one’s sentence, simply because they avoided murdering someone while in prison, is bizarre and irrational. Kler is an excellent example of an inmate who had ‘earned’ an early release. But many of those denied parole deserve the entire punisment given them by a jury of 12.