Crime Victim Services

Board of Parole Hearings Launches Web Page for Crime Victims Victims Can Now Access Parole Suitability Hearing Transcripts

Posted on November 17, 2009. Filed under: Crime Victim Services |

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                  CONTACT: Peggy Bengs
November 17, 2009                                                                                           Cheryl Campoy

(916) 445-4950

 

SACRAMENTO – The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (CDCR) Board of Parole Hearings has launched a web page that allows crime victims to request transcripts for Parole Suitability Hearings of inmates sentenced to life with the possibility of parole.

 

“Continuing to protect the rights of victims through our criminal justice system is a top priority of my department,” said CDCR Secretary Matthew Cate.  “This new web page will make important information more readily available to victims of crime and their families and help to keep them safe.”

 

Within approximately 30 days upon completion of a prisoner’s hearing before the Board, a transcript of the hearing will be available upon request.  Transcripts may be requested by email at no cost by accessing the web page.  Alternatively, a copy of the transcript will be mailed for a fee of $25.00.  Previously victims were charged per page, which could be costly for transcripts running hundreds of pages, and an electronic version was not available.

 

If a transcript requested by e-mail is not available in the database — for example, transcripts of hearings that took place in the past and are archived – a fee of $25 will be charged for those as well.  The requestor will be contacted if the Board does not have an electronic copy of the transcript and request the fee.

 

Any persons requesting a hearing transcript must be registered and meet the criteria of a victim as identified through the Office of Victim and Survivor Rights and Services.  The registration form is available by accessing the new web page.

 

In 2008, California voters passed Proposition 9, the “Victim’s Bill of Rights Act of 2008,” often called “Marsy’s Law,” which expands victims’ rights in parole proceedings for prisoners sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole.  The law applies to all hearings for the purpose of setting, postponing, or rescinding of life prisoner parole dates. Marsy’s Law, Penal Code section 3041.5 (a) (4) permits the victim, next of kin, members of the victim’s family, and two representatives designated by the victim to request and receive a stenographic record of all proceedings.

 

Marsy’s Law was named after Marsalee (Marsy) Nicholas, a University of California Santa Barbara student, who was stalked and killed by her ex-boyfriend in 1983. Only a week after Marsy was murdered, her mother walked into a grocery store after visiting her daughter’s grave and was confronted by the accused murderer.  She did not know that he had been released on bail.

 

Victims can request transcripts of Parole Suitability Hearings by accessing the new web page at: www.cdcr.ca.gov/Divisions_Boards/BOPH/psh_transcript.html .

 

# # #

Advertisements
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( Comments Off on Board of Parole Hearings Launches Web Page for Crime Victims Victims Can Now Access Parole Suitability Hearing Transcripts )

Federal judge limits Calif. crime victims measure

Posted on March 26, 2009. Filed under: Courts, Crime Victim Services, Parole, Victims Rights |

 

Thursday, March 26, 2009

(03-26) 16:18 PDT Sacramento, CA (AP) —

A federal judge on Thursday blocked a portion of a crime victims’ rights measure approved by California voters in November that restricts legal rights for parole violators.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton of Sacramento ruled that a permanent federal injunction previously agreed to by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s administration trumps voters’ support for Proposition 9.

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.

Karlton rejected the administration’s argument that voters’ approval of the ballot measure nullifies the administration’s settlement of the class-action inmate rights lawsuit. The measure was supported by 53 percent of voters.

While the Schwarzenneger administration supported the original settlement, its lawyers say the administration is legally bound to uphold voters’ will. The authors of Proposition 9 had written language into the initiative intended to overturn the lawsuit settlement.

That’s not enough to overturn the injunction, Karlton concluded:

“A change in state law standing alone is not the type of change in factual circumstance that renders continued enforcement of a consent decree inequitable,” he wrote in a 34-page opinion.

It costs the state about $30 million annually to provide alleged parole violators with lawyers, according to corrections officials. Victims groups say the agreement exceeds constitutional requirements, though attorneys representing inmates say it is cheaper than other ways of protecting ex-convicts’ legal rights.

Proposition 9 writes victims’ rights into the California Constitution and contains numerous other restrictions on criminals that are not affected by Karlton’s ruling.

Administration lawyers previously said they are required by state law to appeal Karlton’s decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

“This is an unfortunate reversal of the will of California voters,” Nina Salarno Ashford, founder and board member of Crime Victims United of California, said in a statement. “What’s worse is that we should never have been at this point in the first place.”

She blamed the administration for agreeing to the 2004 settlement.

The settlement ensures that parole can’t be revoked without a proper and swift hearing, responded attorney Ernest Galvan, who represented parolees in the case.

“What Judge Karlton did protects that process,” Galvan said. “I think it’s a win for public safety in California. I think what we’re learning every day is we need to use our scarce prison beds to keep the dangerous people behind bars and to give the parole agents the tools to keep the less dangerous parolees in the community.”

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation spokesman Seth Unger said the administration is reviewing Karlton’s decision. Corrections officials never implemented the portions of Proposition 9 overturned in Karlton’s decision because the judge had entered a temporary stay immediately after the November election.

“We are implementing the will of the people on Marsy’s Law aside from the areas which the court has ordered us not to implement,” Unger said, using the proposition nickname adopted by supporters.

That includes giving more notice to crime victims and delaying parole hearings for inmates serving life sentences. Previously, inmates serving life sentences were entitled to a hearing every one- to five years, but now they are eligible every three- to 15 years.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( Comments Off on Federal judge limits Calif. crime victims measure )

California Victim Compensation Board Spending More But Helping Less

Posted on December 11, 2008. Filed under: Crime Victim Services |

Payments fall from $123.9 million in fiscal 2001-02 to $81.2 million last year, a state audit shows. But the costs to run the board have risen substantially.
By Patrick McGreevy
December 10, 2008
Crime victims in California are getting less financial help from a state victim compensation fund, and too much is spent on administering the program, according to a state audit released Tuesday. 

The amount of victim compensation payments fell from $123.9 million in the 2001-02 fiscal year to $61.6 million four years later — a 50% decline.

The payments last year were $81.2 million, still below the amount paid seven years ago, according to California Auditor Elaine Howle’s report. 

“Despite the significant decline in payments, the costs the board incurs to support the program have increased,” Howle wrote in a letter to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. “These costs — ranging from 26 percent to 42 percent annually — account for a significant portion of Restitution Fund disbursements.”

The cut in payments was the result of action by the state Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board to avoid the fund running out of money before all claims were handled, said Miles Bristow, a board spokesman. He said payments have gone up and administrative costs have gone down in the last few years as the board has increased the amount allowed for claims for mental health services, burial and other needs. Julie Nauman, the board’s executive director, agreed with the audit’s recommendations, which included refining goals to maximize help to victims.

The fund is financed with restitution fines levied against convicted criminals, as well as federal grants. Last year, 50,895 claims from crime victims were filed, a 4% increase from the year before.

McGreevy is a Times staff writer.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( Comments Off on California Victim Compensation Board Spending More But Helping Less )

California parolees get a chance in community programs

Posted on May 4, 2008. Filed under: Crime, Crime Victim Services, Parole |

By Andy Furillo – afurillo@sacbee.com
Published 12:00 am PDT Sunday, May 4, 2008

California corrections officials are again diverting thousands of parole violators into community programs instead of sending them to prison, hoping this time the experiment doesn’t fail.

Since August, the prison population has steadily declined as the state pours millions of dollars into community programs like drug treatment and electronic home detention.

Four years ago, a similar effort collapsed. The Bureau of State Audits found in 2005 that the state failed to analyze or monitor the programs for effectiveness. Most of the diverted parolees either didn’t complete the programs or wound up back in prison anyway – including 242 who committed new crimes when they otherwise could have been back in prison.

This time, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, supported by top criminal justice researchers from around the country, is evaluating the programs as they roll out. The agency is also assessing the participating offenders for risk, trying to avoid violent public-relations disasters.

Legislative analysts say the prison population reductions could save the state $110 million through the next budget year, but officials say it is too soon to tell whether the trend can continue without compromising public safety.

“I don’t know the answer,” said UC Irvine criminology professor Joan Petersilia, chair of the committee that is advising Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on the state’s rehabilitation measures. “It depends on how many very low-risk people we have, and we really don’t know that yet. It also depends on whether the communities will step up to the plate and sponsor these programs. I think it’s an unknown.”

The corrections agency already has suffered one spectacular setback.

Last year, it released a parolee named David Kenneth Hamilton despite an assessment that Hamilton had “a high propensity for violence,” corrections spokesman Oscar Hidalgo said.

Although he violated parole by not attending classes for spousal batterers, officials did not put Hamilton back in prison or into a community program. On April 20, Hamilton, along with another suspect, robbed and killed a man in Foothill Farms, then torched the victim’s house, according to Sacramento sheriff’s investigators. Hamilton was later shot and killed while running from deputies.

Hidalgo defended his agency’s performance in the Hamilton case, saying that his “missing a meeting did not require an automatic revocation” of his parole. Hidalgo said the corrections department still is “absolutely” committed to following through with the new parole direction.

“We think it is important to find alternatives to incarceration for inmates to give them the best chance to succeed,” Hidalgo said.
Parole violators fill prisons

California churns tens of thousands of parolees through the prison system every year for violating the technical terms of their releases, such as missing meetings with their agents, hanging out with other criminals, not attending classes, testing positive for drugs, or failing to comply with any specially set conditions.

Last year, there were 73,657 parole returns to prison, with the average stay amounting to about four months. The result has been massive pressure on the prison system, driving the population last August to an all-time high of 173,614, including 20,030 who at that time were serving short-term parole violations or were awaiting a revocation decision.

In the next seven months, the population dropped by more than 3,600 inmates to 169,949. Short-term parolees in the prison system dropped by 1,500 during that period. Fewer new convictions, mostly for drug and property crimes, accounted for the other half, according to corrections statistics.

A federal class-action lawsuit helped the state reach the lower inmate numbers.

The so-called Valdivia case, settled in U.S. District Court in Sacramento in 2003, forced the state to conduct timely revocation hearings. It also required corrections officials to establish a “remedial sanctions” programs for less-serious parole violators.

Corrections officials shut down the sanctions program once its problems became apparent. After a court challenge, last year the state agreed to make available 1,800 new community drug treatment beds and place 500 more offenders on electronic home detention.

A special master monitoring the case found in November that the state had substantially complied with the order. Plaintiffs lawyer Michael Bien agreed, saying “I think for the first time, there has been a focused, sincere effort to actually come into compliance.”

But the state is only accommodating “a tiny percentage” of its short-term parole violators, and it needs to do a lot more, Bien said.

Parole officials said they are trying.

On its own, the state in the past year opened seven new “day reporting” and community centers for parolees, including one in Sacramento. Parole agents also have placed hundreds of homeless parolees into residential facilities, sometimes instead of prison, in instances where they make mistakes.

As of last month, 5,078 California parolees were enrolled in remedial or intermediate sanctions programs, compared with 1,899 a year ago – a 167 percent increase, according to figures compiled by The Bee.

“We’re confident this is a shift in our paradigm,” said Robert Ambroselli, deputy director in charge of the corrections agency’s parole division.
Parolees accept restrictions

Theresa Joseph, 52, a parolee with a history of credit fraud whose most recent conviction was for attempted robbery, these days wears a wristwatch-sized electronic monitor around her ankle. Her parole agent gave it to her last month when she violated her parole by taking a friend’s car without permission.

Joseph needs to be in her mother’s south Sacramento home by 8 o’clock every night, at risk of a violation. She said the restriction sure beats prison.

“It’s making me think,” Joseph said. “Don’t do anything wrong – don’t do anything wrong. Think before you act. Because the possibility is I could be back in prison. So yes, it’s making me more aware of what I’m doing.”

In some cases, parolees are volunteering for programs, even if it means they’re confined for longer periods of time. Tim Longacre, 45, chose to participate in the three-month Parolee Substance Abuse Program in a locked facility in Folsom and then do three more months in residential aftercare, even though he only faced five months of prison time on his parole violation.

“In (prison), you’re up on a bunk,” Longacre said. “If you get a book to read, you’re lucky. Here you can actually talk to somebody and get some feedback.”

Tony DeWeese, 27, who has been to prison 13 times during the past eight years, including multiple returns on parole violations, graduated from the Folsom program last week and is scheduled to be released Thursday.

“This is a chance for rehabilitation,” DeWeese said. “It makes you look at yourself and think, maybe I do have a problem. Maybe it was all me.”

The programs don’t come cheap. This year, California is spending $217 million on them, including post-prison drug treatment for parolees who complete in-prison programs, according to the governor’s budget. The administration is asking to increase the spending next year to $247 million.

State Sen. Mike Machado, D-Linden, whose budget subcommittee monitors prison spending, said the investment carries the potential for huge savings down the road.

“I think we possibly are looking at fundamental changes,” Machado said.

Assemblyman Todd Spitzer, R-Orange, urged caution. He said he first wants to see some data.

“They’ve implemented a lot of these changes without showing us how they’re going to improve public safety,” Spitzer said. “What are the results? Are these guys completing these programs? Are they getting new violations?”
Many states pursue change

Parole and corrections agencies across the country are asking the same kinds of questions. About 20 to 25 states are on the same parole change path as California, according to Michael Jacobson, director of the Vera Institute of Justice in New York, which works with state and local law enforcement agencies on cost-conscious crime fighting strategies.

“There’s a lot of ferment now,” Jacobson said. “And California is right there.”

Jacobson listed Kansas as a state that is a little further along than most, and its corrections chief thinks he is coming up with some answers.

In February, Kansas corrections Secretary Roger Werholtz reported to his state’s Legislature that two years into its parole overhaul, Kansas has cut its rate of parolees committing new crimes in half.

“What we’re doing here isn’t magic,” Werholtz said. “But you’ve got to take the emotion and the politics out of it, and we’ve been very lucky in Kansas that we’ve been able to do that.”

Werholtz said that to make the package work, corrections officials need to stick with it even if a parolee does something horrible.

“Those kinds of things will happen,” he said. “But if I can lower the aggregate numbers, I think we can prove we can make this state safer.”

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( Comments Off on California parolees get a chance in community programs )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...