Parole in California

Sasha Abramsky has written a pretty interesting piece on the how "lifers" are unlikely to get parole in the Californian prison system.

He contrasts two inmates: Charles Manson & Jerry Elster. He contends that the various California Governors don't look at how an inmate has been rehabilitated and generally refuses parole.

Sasha states that it is correct to refuse Manson parole as "releasing him wouldn't serve the public interest". However, he cites that the decision to refuse Jerry Elster his freedom even though he could be considered " a model in inmate in San Quentin". The board of Governors recommended him for release but Governor Schwarzenegger refused stating that the public would be at risk were he be released.

So where do you draw the line, how do you qualify or even quantify risk? How can you say that one inmate would represent a risk and another not?

Is this "risk" really a "risk of not getting re-elected or loosing political capital? Which Governor would release a convicted killer early, there would surely be no advantage of doing so. Think of the effect that it would have if a killer paroled happened to kill someone again whether intentially or not. The impact would be huge.

If you're interested in the debate, I recommend you take a consider Sasha's view.