There might be some political support and campaign money involved. Seems like a losing decision to me. He could have waited until after the election. It’s California though… who knows what they’ll do.
I find this surprising:
One of my relatives was on the jury for the second Menendez trial (the one where they were comvicted). He didn’t talk about it much other than to say they were guilty as hell.
The ruling from Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael Jesic reduced the brothers’ sentences from life in prison without parole to 50 years to life, making them immediately eligible for parole. The state parole board must decide whether to release them.
He can try again in three years. A parole hearing for his brother Lyle Menendez, who is being held at the same prison in San Diego, is scheduled for Friday morning.
Despite each receiving three-year denials, they will be eligible to request an administrative review in one year. If granted, they could appear before the parole board again as early as 18 months from now.
I wonder how successful they will be then.
As long as they aren’t at risk of reoffending, it seems fair to release them.
Obviously with the condition that nobody can adopt them, to cut the risk to zero
Tries to avoid making the obvious joke.
Fails.
They could try asking for leniency since they’re orphans
Comment from parole commissioner re denial of parole for Lyle Menendez:
“You have been a model inmate in many ways who has demonstrated the potential for change,” Garland told him at his first-ever parole hearing. “But despite all those outward positives, we see … you still struggle with anti-social personality traits like deception, minimization and rule-breaking that lie beneath that positive surface.”
Isn’t it well-known that sociopaths are often “model” citizens in the controlled environment of prison? I’d be more concerned about that than their having unauthorized cellphones.
Curious that a family statement emphasizes their “remorse” for crimes they have claimed were fully justified.
I’m sorry @NotEncinoMan, I do not agree with if they are not at risk of reoffending, it seems fair to release them. One could take that to the extreme and say most people who kill a spouse, parent, child, sibling etc are not at risk of killing again so just release them. For that matter since they aren’t likely to kill again, why incarcerate them in the first place? Find them guilty and set them free.
Killing in self defense is one thing, planning a murder for past offenses is something different.
I believe murder has one of the lowest recidivism rates for this reason. Most murders are circumstantial or driven by emotion. There are very few Bundys, Dahmers, Chases, etc. who kill for its own sake or can’t stop doing so.
I remember when the killings happened. Those poor boys. I remember when they met the police in the driveway at the scene, hands raised, giving themselves up, weeping about how their father had been raping them for years and threatening them with death if they spoke up or moved away, and how they were so sorry about their mom, but she was there, and things just got out of hand…
Oh wait, no, they just blamed their dad’s supposed organized crime friends, and immediately went on a huge spending spree with daddy’s cash.
Those poor boys. In jail for all these years.
Not enough years.
Yeah, people who murder family members can be counted on to live spotless lives afterwards.
Kemper was a psychopath that had violent fantasies years before he killed his grandparents and an exception to the rule. The simple fact is that most murderers don’t commit more murders after being released from prison. It actually has one of the lowest recidivism rates of any major crime. Most murderers (and criminals as a whole) are roughly normal people, not bloodthirsty psychopaths and psychotics who can’t help but kill again and again.
It also has the longest sentencing of any major crime, which plays a large part in why recidivism is so low. Most people who commit murder in their late teens or early 20s won’t commit murder again when they are released in their 50s or 60s. That’s hardly a justification for immediate release of murders and is in fact a point in favor of the role of incapacitation in prison sentencing, i.e. the purpose of keeping dangerous criminals isolated from the public. The recidivism rate for all crimes drops heavily once offenders are no longer young or middle aged.
And that’s not even touching on retribution being one of the accepted purposes in prison sentencing, along with deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation.
You’re right. I never said anything about immediately releasing murderers from prison.
Yeah, you pretty much did:
and
Without taking into consideration why the recidivism rate for murder is so low. People convicted of murder aren’t being released after a couple of years in prison to rehabilitate them. They’re being released as old men.
Perhaps they could be released but then have to complete a Bruster’s Millions style challenge to spend a large amount of money in a short time and without holding any assets at the end.
This would keep them busy on first release, allow them opertunity to socialise and learn modern financial systems
And after all that forced spending, they’d probably be sick of money, like a child who sneaks a cigarette being punished by having to smoke an entire pack.