Approaching a parole hearing by revisiting how heinous the original crime was is logically flawed. The evil of the original crime was taken into account when the sentence was first imposed. The indefinite bounds placed on the sentence allow for circumstances subsequent to the sentencing to be taken into account: how was the convict’s behaviour in prison, does she show remorse, is she likely to reoffend, and so on. Factoring the original crime in a second time punishes twice for the same conviction.
3 Likes
You bring up an interesting point that I think goes back to how the U.S. system of “checks and balances” is supposed to work. The legislature sets up the law, the judiciary interprets it, and the administrative implements it. By that light it most certainly is within the governor’s purview to override a parole board.
And a point I haven’t seen made about the “elected official” aspect of this is representation. Aside from the undoubted popularity contest aspect, an elected official also has a duty to represent the electorate. I really don’t think the general California population are quite ready to see Van Houten released.
1 Like
Yeah, it is really easy to imagine the black and white anti-Newsom campaign ad accusing him of releasing a brutal murderer. It’s pretty sad that our justice system comes down to minimizing roadblock’s Gavin Newsom’s future run for senate or president rather than on the actual merits of the case.
The Lumpenproletariat of music fandom? Nah… they are mostly harmless working class kids.
Let’s save that for neo-nazi skins, instead.
Is it just me, or does Van Houten look a lot like Taslitz from OITNB? The old lady who got sent to max for shanking (it turned out) the wrong person…
No, I don’t think it is normally like that at all. The legislature makes law, the executive and administrative arms of the state operate it, the courts provide oversight. Presidents providing pardon in an exceptional case is just that, an exception in exceptional circumstances. The other arms of the government are not either tasked with or usually capable of changing the findings of an independent judiciary. As for the people of california being ready or not: that’s precisely why the administration of justice is usually better placed out of control of politicians seeking short term popularity for elections. Politicians getting control of the judiciary is a recipe for despotism. I’m sure you can think of examples from history, and right now Poland is in real danger.
Agreed! But they have been labeled by the FBI as a gang, which allows their rights to free assembly to be infringed.
1 Like
And the FBI is wrong, of course. This is the exact same FBI that spied on civil rights groups, gay rights groups, environmental groups, and more recently BLM. They are flat out wrong in many cases.
1 Like
I wasn’t stating an opinion, I was quoting civics lessons. “Judicial oversight” applies to the executive branch’s implementation of law, as part of the intended mutual balancing, just as the executive has power to veto new law.
Ah, so you’re assuming the parole board are a judicial function? I’m assuming they’re under the aegis of the administrative, as part of the implementation of law. And now I’ve checked. Parole boards are part of the Department of Justice which is part of the executive branch, not the judicial (despite the name). Department of Justice | About DOJ | United States Department of Justice
[quote=“robertmckenna, post:47, topic:145371, full:true”]As for the people of california being ready or not: that’s precisely why the administration of justice is usually better placed out of control of politicians seeking short term popularity for elections. Politicians getting control of the judiciary is a recipe for despotism. I’m sure you can think of examples from history, and right now Poland is in real danger.
[/quote]
And you are again ignoring the representative aspect. Not to mention that placing the administration of justice in hands that are not frequently accountable to the populace is most certainly a recipe for dictatorship, though not despotism. I’m sure we can both come up with examples of that as well.
1 Like
Voters do have an important role to play in the administration of justice but the reason many judicial positions (including the Supreme Court) are lifetime appointments is to ensure that those appointees’ decisions are not swayed by personal career ambitions or concern over what voters might want at any given moment.
It’s a pretty safe bet that neither the governor nor the public at large has carefully reviewed this defendant’s case for parole as carefully as the parole board has. The decision regarding her release should be based on a careful, measured review of the facts rather than what the popular consensus happens to be.
2 Likes
Police force?
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
