Sarah Jane Olson’s arrest at an airport and re-incarceration only a few days after being released from prison is the latest example of the failure of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to shift its culture from one based on punishment and prisoner recycling to rehabilitation and community re-integration. The old punishment culture that produced the determinate sentencing regime in the late 1970’s made it next to impossible to release inmates that no longer poised a threat to public safety. By taking away discretion in sentencing from parole boards and Judges the State has left thousands of inmates languishing in prison long after they’ve been rehabilitated.
In Olson’s case, her re-incarceration after serving 6 years of a 12 year sentence for crimes that were committed 30 years ago while she was with the Symbionese Liberation Army indicates that political pressure from well organized law enforcement groups is enough to reverse the judgment of Case Records Analysts and the Board of Parole Hearings both of whom had decided that Olson qualified for work credits and had paid her debt to society. The department admitted as much in its initial statements on Olson’s parole revocation. Scott Kernan, the chief deputy secretary for the California Department of Corrections said the review was ordered “after many concerns raised in the media.” It’s good to know that CDCR release dates are based on the level of police stoked, media “concern” that a case generates. When a release case is high profile, politicians and pressure groups come out and demand the inmate stay behind bars for as long as possible to demonstrate their toughness on crime. The CDCR is all too willing to buckle under this pressure.
The cover story is that a vigilant reporter uncovered a release date mistake that everyone else missed. But SEIU Local 1000, the Union that represents state workers that conduct release date calculations, insists that no mistakes were made and the discrepancy in calculation is due to the various ways in which statutes, court decisions and CDCR sentencing rules can be interpreted in order to derive a release date. Marc Bautista, SEIU Local 1000 Vice President for organizing said “This case underscores the complexity of sentencing laws in California and the difficulty in properly tracking and calculating the release dates for more than 170,000 inmates.” There is often more than one “correct” release date for inmates depending on any number of variables that can often change. This underscores the need for a sentencing commission that would revamp and simplify sentencing guidelines.
Returning Olson to prison is really about settling old political scores from the 1960’s and 1970’s between the police and radicals. Olson’s involvement with the attempt to bomb two empty cop cars (the bombs never ignited- it’s the left after all) and her tangential involvement with a bank robbery that ended in the death of an innocent victim got her a stiff prison term. The re- prosecution of the San Francisco 8 for the alleged murder of Stg. John V. Young is another example of the right-wing using the criminal justice system to get revenge on their political enemies.
The Olson case is just the tip of an iceberg that is showing no signs of melting anytime soon. Currently the CDCR is keeping over 17,160 prisoners beyond there sentences because the department has failed to follow California Supreme and Appellant Court decisions requiring that certain inmates have there release dates recalculated. Earlier this year the Schwarzenegger administration purposed the early release of non- violent, non serious offenders and the summary parole of low level ex- prisoners exiting the system but told its Department of Finance not to flesh out the programmatic, staffing and operational ramifications of the proposals unless the legislature passes them first. This has made more than a few folks suspicious of the seriousness of these efforts to ease overcrowding.
This sad episode reminds us of the role that petty resentments and ego play in important events and decisions. The L.A.P.D.’S grudge against radicals from the 1960’s and 70’s, who often ineptly targeted symbols of their authority, voiced their opposition to Olson’s early release. Los Angeles Police Protective League President Tim Sands claimed “She needs to serve her full time in prison for these crimes and does not deserve time-off for working in prison.” One wonders if Mr. Sands would get rid of conduct and work credits for everyone- thereby giving inmates nothing to lose by breaking the rules and committing violence against other inmates- or whether he just has it in for Sara Olson. I think the latter is the case and that’s ultimately why Olson may have to spend another year in prison. Roger White, March 2008