Law-Ordered Release of Vicious Felons Is a Crime

There are 1,507 parolees registered in San Francisco--the highest number per capita in the state. Fifteen percent of these parolees committed their crimes in other counties, but nevertheless were paroled to our city. Parolees are arrested daily for crimes that they commit in San Francisco--164 parole violators were caught in the last six weeks alone. That, I submit, is quite enough--and too many, already.

While we are momentarily assured that Lawrence Singleton, convicted in 1979 of kidnaping and raping a 15-year-old girl and chopping off her forearms, will not be turned loose in San Francisco, Californians are by no means assured that there will not be more cases like Singleton’s.

The issue has troubled me for many years--both before and after the state’s determinate-sentencing law was passed in 1977. Under determinate sentencing, convicted felons cannot be kept in prison beyond the time of their determined sentences--and frequently they are released early because of “good time” that they earn behind bars. Often they are not getting sentences commensurate with their crimes, then they are being turned loose by law, ready or not.

Many felons who have committed the most heinous crimes do well in prison and earn the “good-time” credits that cut their too-short sentences in half. Present law orders their release even if the felons are a threat to society, or even if they have no job, place to go or means of support.

There are very serious questions as to whether people who commit heinous crimes should even be considered for “good time.”

In a recent speech to the District Attorneys Assn., I said again that California’s criminal-justice system is not working and not protecting the public, and urged these officials to lead the fight for a thorough review.

These are my recommendations:

--California should consider returning to the indeterminate system of sentencing that was in effect until 1977. That system set a minimum and maximum sentence for most crimes, with actual prison time served somewhere in between. Under this method, a term-setting authority could evaluate an individual’s potential threat to society; individuals who committed particularly heinous crimes could be incarcerated for the maximum period.

--The sentencing authority should grant parole to notorious criminals only after careful planning for their future outside prison, which would include assurances of a job and a place to live.

--Parole periods should be substantially longer. Today, parole supervision can be for as little as a year, or it can be totally eliminated.

--The system for giving credit for good time should be reviewed and flexibility should be added. The parole authority should be legislatively granted the ability to refuse parole where the individual, on the basis of professional evaluations, would be a threat to society.

--Finally, it is imperative that we conduct a major study of determinate sentencing. Are major offenders doing more or less time today? Is recidivism better or worse? We need to know this to devise more effective laws.

The primary responsibility of any public official is the safety of the public. Right now the public of California is not being protected.

Last Wednesday Gov. George Deukmejian said of Lawrence Singleton: “As far as I’m concerned, based on what he did, he should have remained in prison for life. It is most unfortunate, but the law must be observed.”

But the law can be changed. The governor and the Legislature should look deeply into the fearsome flaws in the system. And the public, which is deeply concerned about this issue, should write letters demanding that state leaders protect them from criminals now being freed among us. Tell them that you’ve had enough of this dangerous nonsense. Tell them that you need new laws that consider public safety first, and criminals only after they are rehabilitated and ready to live among us. Tell them to junk determinate sentencing, which is a bill of rights for criminals.

And tell them that you want a law that gives you some rights--to protect yourself.