Judge strikes parole-revocation provisions in California law

Sacramento Bee ^ | 1/26/12 | Denny Walsh

[SmithL]

A Sacramento federal judge has struck down as unconstitutional the part of California's so-called Victims' Bill of Rights that governs parole revocation.

The law, enacted by voter approval of a 2008 ballot initiative known as Proposition 9, was a sweeping amendment to the state constitution, conferring a long list of entitlements on crime victims. The sections dealing with parole revocation were made part of the state's Penal Code.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton ruled Tuesday that those sections fall short of providing the minimum due process guaranteed by the Constitution and two U.S. Supreme Court decisions, Morrissey v. Brewer – a landmark in 1972 – and Gagnon v. Scarpelli one year later.

[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

[kosciusko51]

How is an amendment to a state constitution unconstitutional? The purpose is to change the constitution.

[kosciusko51]

Ah, nevermind. Federal judge, not state. Conflict between CA and US documents.

[Above My Pay Grade]

I think states need to start doing away with parole, as we know it, and rename it something like “reassignment to remote ultra-low security prison”.

A parolee has not completed his or her prison sentence, but has been given an incredibly generous break and been allowed to serve a part of it out of prison.

Unfortunately, idiot judges, like this one, do not seem to grasp that concept.

If a criminal receives a 15 year sentence, he should be considered an INMATE for 15 full years. If he is released after 10 years, then his home should be considered his jail cell and remote corrections officers (which would replace “parole officers”) should be able to search that “remote prison cell” whenever they please, for any reason or no reason at all.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks SmithL.