By BARBARA SIMPSON
If we are to believe the media, there are thousands of Californians who are leaving the state. Not for vacations — these are permanent moves to “somewhere else.”
The reasons are as varied as the lives of the people involved, but one major consideration for many is the fact that the crime rate in the state is growing. It is worse in the large cities, but crime and how criminals are dealt with is a problem across the state.
One of the aspects of this is the fact that there’s a tendency on the part of local elected officials to be relatively “soft” on crime and the criminals. One prime example is the District Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco, Chesa Boudin. In office since January 2020, angry citizens want him out and he is facing a recall. They claim he is too soft on crime and making the city more dangerous.
Another aspect of the attitude about crime and criminals is the move across the state to “empty” the prisons. The death penalty has all but been eliminated and many criminals are being given early paroles.
On the other hand, there is no real pattern for these paroles, and some might say, there is no rhyme or reason for the decisions made concerning them. Take two examples from just last week.
Think back to August 1969. That was the month that Charlie Manson and his followers (called “family” members) went on a crime spree in Los Angeles that shattered the country. They massacred actress Sharon Tate, who was pregnant, and four others. The next night, some of the same killers massacred grocer Leno LaBianca and his wife Rosemary.
Manson was given a life sentence and died of natural causes in 2017. Varied members of the group were also sentenced and one of them Leslie Van Houten, is in the news again because of a recommendation for a parole.
Van Houten is 72 now and the parole board suggested that she would pose no threat to the public if she were released. She was not involved in the Tate murders but was involved in the stabbing deaths of the La Biancas.
She has had 21 parole hearings since 1982 — only five recommended her release, claiming she’s remorseful and not a threat to the public.
Despite that, Gov. Gavin Newsom has rejected three of those parole recommendations, including the current one. Former Gov. Jerry Brown rejected two of those recommendations. When she appealed one of the rejections to the State Supreme Court, it was rejected.
Gov. Newsom noted that despite the fact she’s taken self-help classes, earned educational degrees, and had therapy in prison, Van Houten has “gaps in insight” that continue to make her a danger to society.
So in jail, she will stay — for now at least.
But there is another BIG California crime that’s in the news again and the issue also is parole.
In this case, think back to 1976. You may recall the crime that involved a school bus of 26 children, ages 5-14, and their driver, kidnapped by three men. The victims were literally buried alive in an underground truck trailer at a gravel quarry and held for $5 million in ransom. It was the largest mass kidnapping in state history.
But the crime didn’t turn out as planned because the driver and older children dug their way out of their grave after nearly two days and all were saved. Almost miraculously, none had life-threatening injuries.
There were three kidnappers, Richard and James Schoenfeld and Frederick Woods. They were local men from wealthy families and said they got the idea for the crime from a movie.
They were originally sentenced to “life without parole,” but an appeals court overturned that, which gave them the possibility of parole. In fact, the Schoenfelds were released: one by an appeals court order and other when then-Gov. Jerry Brown approved the parole.
That leaves Frederick Woods behind bars — denied parole 16 times. But maybe not now. He has been recommended for parole and it will be up to the current governor, Gavin Newsom, to consider the matter. Two of the victims of the crime support his parole possibility. Others are strongly opposed to it.
The current state law requires parole commissioners to give weight to freeing inmates who were “young” when they committed their crime. Woods was 24 at the time of the crime and said, at a hearing, that he now has “empathy for the victims that he didn’t have then.”
His record in prison is not without discipline problems. According to the Associated Press, it is reported Woods faced discipline for running an unauthorized Christmas Tree Farm and a Gold Mine from behind bars!
Dare I say it, only in California!
During his current parole hearing, prosecutors said his infractions in prison show he hasn’t yet learned to follow rules.
Woods and his attorney responded that he has been discipline free since his October 2019 parole hearing!
In what an only can be described as an interesting twist in this case concerns one of the judges who overturned Woods’ conviction which would have put him behind bars without the possibility of parole. CBS News described that judge as “a strong believer in rehabilitation for felons.”
In fact, after that judge retired, he became an advocate for the release of all three of the men, calling their act a youthful “stunt” with “no vicious aspect to it.”
Think about it. These guys were all in their twenties yet were (are) being regarded as doing a “youthful stunt.” They planned it for over a year, had the place where 26 children were buried all set up in advance and carried it out successfully — until the driver and the children were resourceful enough to dig themselves out after two days.
Yes, none were physically injured, but the life-long memories and fears are with them and remain.
Don’t the citizens of California have a right to expect their government and law enforcement to put the rights of victims ahead of the criminals? Situations like this, leave room for doubt.
So does this: Recall that judge who advocated for the release of the kidnappers? He was William Newsom — the father of the current Democrat governor of California, Gavin Newsom.
No wonder Californians are moving out!!!!!
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress