A Study of the Activities and Costs of the Board of Prison Terms of California

From: Richard Goodman P.O. BOX 21204 Oakland CA 94620-1204

To: Mr. Robert Presley, Secretary Youth and Adult Correctional Agency Sacramento, California

Dear Mr. Presley: I appreciate your taking the time to meet with me regarding my study of the activities and costs of the Board of Prison Terms. This examination of the costs and functioning of the Board of Prison Terms started about a year and a half ago and at first concentrated on the financial aspect of the Board. It demonstrates that the Board, because it is not doing its job honestly, is wasting a minimum of 1/3 of a billion dollars every decade -- and that is a conservative estimate. But that is not the main thrust of this letter. What I want to communicate to you is that it has become very clear that the Board of Prison Terms is now so politicized that it no longer performs the function for which it was designed and intended. It is now serving the political interests of the governor and of the victims' rights representatives. The study of the Board's functioning that forms the basis for this letter is meticulously documented. More than 400 presently incarcerated "lifers" have described to varying degrees their Board of Prison Term hearings, and dozens have sent their transcripts, psychological reports, chronos, and other material as proof. No one in the offices of Senators and Assemblyman can conceivably spare the time to do an analysis this extensive and thorough. It has already lasted 2-1/2 months and it continues. Even in this short a period of time. it has made evident broad, overall Paterson demonstrating that political rather than correctional purposes drive the Board's actions and that Board members have an absolute disregard for the public interest. Any charge made in this report can be amply documented with Board hearing transcripts and other documents. Here are some of the illegalities and abuse that we have found the Board commits:

(1) Total disregard of psychological evaluations. From literally dozens of psychiatric reports and Board comments about them during actual hearings, it is clear that more than 90 percent of the time the Board either distorts or ignores positive psychological reports. One Board tactic is to ...(missing)

(2) missing

(3) missing

(4) Knowing use of false information. Time and time again, Board members eagerly seize upon information that they can clearly see is false and use it as justification for parole denials. This happens even when they are obviously wrong. For instance, we found one case where after a man had been in prison for two years, another man with the same name had committed a crime on the outside which the inmate could not possibly have committed, yet still the Board held this other person's crime against the inmate. This use of false information and flagrant disregard for evidential truth when the results put the inmate in a bad light form a broad, very widespread pattern. This practice is the rule, not the exception.

(5) Forcing an admission of guilt. Although regulations forbid the Board's forcing an inmate to admit guilt, the Board generally gets around this by insisting that an inmate show remorse for his crime. A "lack of remorse" is commonly cited as one of the reasons for denying an inmate parole. How can one show remorse if one does not admit guilt? Contrary to the old saw about there being no men in prison who admit their guilt, most inmates do. A few inmates, however, are actually not guilty of the crime for which they were convicted. Even district and prosecuting attorneys admit this. Yet these innocent inmates stand no chance of parole unless they show "remorse." They stand on principle. These are courageous men. They will not be bullied into admitting that they committed a crime they did not commit. Yet the Board's broad pattern is that if an inmate doesn't show remorse (and thus admit guilt), he won't be paroled.

(6) Altered transcripts. While most transcripts come back to the inmates more or less accurately depicting what occurred at the hearing, some have definitely been altered. Eyewitnesses at these hearings, both attorneys and inmates, state that a common way Board members alter what appears on a transcript is by putting their hands over their microphone before they say something, ensuring that the transcriber will later have to detail this section as an "inaudible." This is very common. These witnesses also report that Board members often make statements before or after the hearing actually begins, when they know they will not be on record. Less common is an actual, deliberate alteration of what is on the tape. For instance, a very articulate inmate may find that sections of his transcripts are garbled and cut short, making him sound mentally defective. In one instance, we found that perhaps as much as 50% of what occurred was not on the transcription. At least one attorney present at a hearing has complained that his client's transcription did not accurately depict what took place. The overt, deliberate alteration of a taped version of events seems fairly infrequent. The "hand over the microphone technique" - or indeed, simply stating things before or after the tape has been turned on or off - seems fairly common.

(7) Interrupting inmates and not allowing them to speak. This practice is moderately common. It not only occurs when inmates are asked to respond to specific questions, but also when they are given their final time to summarize the reasons they should be granted parole. It amounts to a form of bullying that would not be tolerated in a court of law.

(8) Lack of impartiality due to a "Victims' Rights" orientation. We favor measured, reasonable victims' rights. We favor the right of a victim to be heard at a criminal's trial or sentencing. We favor restitution, either by the criminal or, if that is not possible, by the State. We favor the payment of medical costs, either by the criminal or by the State. And we favor ...missing...

(9) missing...Another such inaccurate and catchall phrase states that an inmate "failed to program sufficiently" or "failed to program as previous boards have specified." Most often when these statements are used they are untrue. Cruz Reynoso, in his eloquent appeal of the Board's negative parole decision on September 6, 1996, for David Dew (C-67417) (see Appendix A), points out one specific case of this. However, hearing transcripts abound in examples of this abuse.

(10) Requiring programming impossible for the inmate to obtain. The Board often tells prisoners that they must attend some self-help programs such as AA or NA or psychotherapy in prisons in institutions where these programs are not offered. This sort of requirement of the impossible is moderately widespread.

(11) Requiring irrelevant programming. The Board often requires as a prerequisite for parole an inmate's attendance at AA and NA when narcotics and/or alcohol had nothing to do with the inmate's crimes and where the inmate has never shown any evidence of being an alcoholic or an addict. This excuse for the denial of parole is again used as a formula.

(12) Lack of due process. For a legal discussion of this issue, see Cruz Reynoso's appeal of the Board's decision of David Dew's September 6, 1996, hearing. The Board's failure to follow due process is widespread. Probably no hearing fails to exhibit this.

(13) Failure to follow the established matrix. This abuse is extremely common, but it is at its most flagrant in reference to 7-to-life terms for Pre-1978 lifers. The law as it existed at the time these inmates were sentenced is not being followed. The Board of Prison Terms and the Governor have in effect taken upon themselves a legislative function, somehow changing the law in their minds to justify these men and women in prison way past the time when they should be released.

(14) Hearing decisions are made in advance. That decisions have already been made even before the start of a hearing is clearly the rule rather than the exception. There exist two different types of evidence for this. a) In some instances, evidence proves that the Board makes a decision prior to the hearing. An inmate will go through his hearing, be told to leave the room, be brought back five minutes later and be shown a typed decision. Board members hadn't left the room and had no typewriter. The decision had to have been typed in advance. That Board members already have their minds made up before they hear a prisoner is attested to by attorney Gary Diamond, who has represented inmates at literally hundreds of parole hearings. He states: "I can't tell you how many times I have sat there and the presiding commissioner talks to the inmate a little bit, and as they go into the second phase of the hearing, they are already filling out the decision sheet where they are denying parole to my client." b) Evidence exists, and will probably be brought forward at one or more of the lawsuits, perhaps instituted under the federal Rico Anti-Conspiracy Law, that Board members have already ...missing...

Go to Appendix A: Cruz Reynoso's Appeal Regarding the BPT Decision for David Dew Go To Appendix B: Letter From Inmate X: Learned Helplessness

Back to Tim Leon's homepage