Federal judge limits Calif. crime victims measure

AP via SFGate ^ | 3/26/9

[SmithL]

Sacramento, CA (AP) -- A federal judge is blocking a portion of a crime victims' rights measure approved by California voters in November.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton in Sacramento says a federal injunction that had been agreed to by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration trumps the section of Proposition 9 that limits legal rights for parole violators.

[SmithL]

Will of the people be damned!

[SmithL]

Karlton, Lawrence K.

Born 1935 in Brooklyn, NY

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, Eastern District of California
Nominated by Jimmy Carter on June 5, 1979, to a seat vacated by Thomas J. MacBride; Confirmed by the Senate on July 23, 1979, and received commission on July 24, 1979. Served as chief judge, 1983-1990. Assumed senior status on May 28, 2000.

Education:
Columbia Law School, J.D., 1958

Professional Career:
U.S. Army, 1958-1960
Civilian legal officer, Sacramento Army Depot, 1960-1962
Private practice, Sacramento, California, 1962-1976
Judge, Superior Court of California, Sacramento County, 1976-1979

Race or Ethnicity: White

Gender: Male

[gondramB]

>>The administration agreed in 2004 to provide, at taxpayers’ expense, lawyers for ex-convicts who risk being sent back to prison for violating parole conditions. It also requires the state to act quickly on parole violation allegations and to set up rehabilitation programs that can be used instead of returning the violator to a cell.<<

I’m afraid I agree with him.

If citizens are entitled to due process and lawyers why wouldn’t that apply to parole violators?

[skeeter]

The worm will turn one day.

Keep some rope handy.

[freedumb2003]

Silly voters — like you think your voices matter?

california legislates from the bench.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Seeing that the whole blooming Fornicalia prison system has been in dutch with the Feds for several years, maybe this wasn’t an opportune time for that amendment.

Somehow the much meaner Texas prison system managed to iron out its Federal oversight troubles over a decade ago. Why can’t Fornicalia?

[William Tell]

gondramB said: "If citizens are entitled to due process and lawyers why wouldn’t that apply to parole violators?"

Perhaps because those convicted of felonies and serving time for them have no right to a parole? They are not "due" anything. Therefor, any process that the state wishes to implement should be acceptable. If that means that mere suspicion of violating parole should send the convict back to prison, then that should be the expectation.

[usurper]

If citizens are entitled to due process and lawyers why wouldn’t that apply to parole violators?

Because they have to agree to the terms of their early release. If they don’t agree they can stay in prison and enjoy the free food.

A parole revocation is not a trial on a new crime. It a finding that the parolee has violated the terms of his release and is administrative not criminal in nature.

[gondramB]

>>Perhaps because those convicted of felonies and serving time for them have no right to a parole? They are not “due” anything. Therefor, any process that the state wishes to implement should be acceptable. If that means that mere suspicion of violating parole should send the convict back to prison, then that should be the expectation.<<

I do understand that has been the argument.

But I have never understood this part - if due process is a constitutional right how can parolees be required to give it up? Consider murderers who want to be put to death - we still have all kinds of oversights before we put them to death.

[William Tell]

gondramB said: "... if due process is a constitutional right how can parolees be required to give it up? "

Parolees are subject to the "due process" afforded them during their criminal trials. Once sentenced to prison, they are, as a result of "due process", deprived of virtually all of their liberties, including freedom to travel, freedom of association, right to keep and bear arms, right to vote; even the right to choose the food in their meals and when they can take a shower.

Parole is simply a modification of the conditions of their imprisonment. Those who have served their sentences are not on parole or probation, though still subject to revocation of some rights. With these revocations, I do not agree.

[gondramB]

I can see that.