Posted on 06/19/2004 8:22:44 AM PDT by TERMINATTOR
I had to check the source a couple of times to make sure it didn't say 'The Onion'.
I don't like this.
But look at the story.
Arnold "granted parole to 34 convicted murderers and kidnappers in his first seven months of office."
Davis "freed only eight life sentence prisoners in his four-and-a-half years in office."
I don't trust a paper that tallies killers and kidnappers for one person but only counts killers in the other.
I would like to know the other side of the story.
First-degree kidnapping is punishable by life imprisonment in California, so "life sentence prisoners" does not necessarily include only murderers.
True, but the Earl raises a valid point. They are comparing apples and oranges to some degree.
Perhaps this is true. That his father was the murderer and not he. It could just be me, but unless the deathbed confession was notarized, I don't know how trusting I'd be of the family of the convict.
But are all the cases like this? Where there is evidence to prove the person in jail is innocent? Or are they looking at good behavior and things like that?
The last I heard anything about the CA justice system, it had to do with the three strikes law, where people who committed three minor felonies ended up going to jail for life. Is this still in place? If so, are any of them being considered for parole, or just violent criminals?
If there are people among Schwarzenegger's "murderers and kidnappers" who were not sentenced to life, or among Davis's "life sentence prisoners" who were not murderers and kidnappers, then the thesis of the article is not an "apples and oranges comparison," but an out-and-out lie.
Too late for another recall? McClintock wouldn't have allowed this to happen.
They claim that we can send someone away for "life", but we all know that is not the case.
Perhaps it is time for a law that prohibits the parole of any one given life in prison.
I would prefer we leave a way out to correct any miscarriage of justice, but it is clear that this can be abused.
I did not vote for Arnold simply because a R behind your name does not make you a Republican. Here we can see further evidence of that fact.
When one of these men kills someone, and we can almost guarantee they will, the blood will be on the Governor’s hands.
Neither would Derrick Schmansky.
How about we just leave them IN prison and then we don't have to wonder whether they have turned their lives around or not?
I really hate stuff like this because it gives ammo to those who say, "There's no difference between Republicans and Democrats."
Wasn't the Rojas family the ones that made a large contribution to the Archbishop of LA, and got him to recommend parole? I think they contributed to Davis's campaign too, and mayby even Ahhhnold's. Both major parties are for sale to the highest bidder.
Good! More room for the potheads. < /Sarcasm >
I don't know the particulars of these cases, so I can't tell on that basis whether Arnold is being too lenient or not. But the statistics here are highly misleading.
Gray Davis correctly understood that the Democrats' "soft on crime" reputation was a severe political liability for him, especially after observing Kathleen Brown's collapse in the 1994 Governor's race over the death penalty issue. So Davis was determined to create an image of being tough on crime. To that end he over-ruled his own parole board numerous times and permitted very, very few paroles to go through.
For example, this article says that Pete Wilson (who during his term was considered quite strict on paroles) averaged 12 paroles per year (which would be around 60 over 8 years), compared to Davis' 8 paroles over 5 years. That's a pretty tiny number in a state the size of California.
So it is not so unreasonable that Schwarzenegger would grant parole at a rate more in keeping with past Republican administrations. After all, Arnold doesn't have a problem maintaining a "tough-guy" image. It may also be that Schwarzenegger is playing a bit of catch-up, if there is a backlog of prisoners who deserve parole but who were arbitrarily denied it by Davis.
I was wondering about the same thing, particularly if there was a backlog of people who should be released after five years of Davis. Still, Arnold is a softie when it comes to a chance for him to appear magnanimous, which is why he won't do squat about spending.
Would you expect less from a liberal who is really a Demoncrat?
Hey, YOU voted for him. Now you've got him ... gay marriages ... soft on crime, PRO abortion ... geesh why be outraged now over WHO he is - just another liberal.
Arnold has a lot of things to dig out from, and this apparently is one of them.
Let's not forget who's been running California for far too long. Based on what I'm seeing here, parole policy has finally been de-politicized.
That doesn't seem like such a bad thing to me.
Don't forget the 3 socialist environmental bills he is pushing through. There goes what is left of your property rights. I wish those who supported Arnold would get off their collective arses and help us fight them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.