California’s parole process is already arduous; be careful how you change it

What should be done to change California’s elderly parole program in response to recent decisions to release people convicted of heinous sexual crimes? After years of experience as an attorney working to advance the rights of crime victims and survivors and later, overseeing the state’s parole hearing process for 13 years, here is my response.

Before making changes to any system, one should first understand the existing system.

The Board of Parole Hearings has the very difficult task of determining when, if ever, those who have committed the most severe crimes can be safely released from state prison. The majority of persons released from prison do not go through the board’s hearing process; they are released once they have served their time. And nearly 40% are convicted of a new crime within three years of release.

In contrast, the board’s hearing process is arduous — as it should be. In 2025, less than 11% of scheduled parole hearings resulted in a grant of parole. Only 3% of people released by the board are convicted of a new crime within three years of release. (Less than 1% are convicted of a new felony involving harm to another person.) The rates for people granted parole under the elderly parole program are even lower.

Legally the board must grant parole if a person no longer poses a current, unreasonable risk.

The board takes its responsibility very seriously. It employs forensic psychologists who evaluate each person’s risk based on decades of well-established research. Board members receive extensive training on risk assessment research, and they use an evidence-based, structured decision-making framework (used by 12 other states) to guide their analysis of a person’s risk. Also all decisions granting parole are reviewed by the board’s attorneys and the governor.

Determining someone’s risk for sexual violence requires specialized training from experts. While many may never be safely released, that is not true for all. Some can, with time and treatment, change what they think and how they behave. 

Understandably, most people do not have a reason to know about this area of forensic psychology, nor would they want to, because sexual violence is one of the most difficult topics to discuss and understand.

Victims and survivors have a right to participate in parole hearings, as do prosecutors. The board hears firsthand the impact of these crimes. It does not, however, alter the board’s legal obligation to grant parole if a person no longer poses a risk.

While board members are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the state Senate, they are not elected officials. They are hearing officers with extensive experience as former prosecutors, psychologists, judges, wardens, police officers and others, who work very long hours to make the most informed decisions possible.

More than 11,000 people have been safely released by the board since 2012. Is the system perfect? Of course not. It’s a process involving humans. It is, however, the most advanced, thorough and successful parole system in the country for people who have committed the most serious crimes. 

Having an evidence-based parole hearing process that balances respect and compassion for victims and survivors with the need to protect our communities from violence — and to incentivize rehabilitation — is a compassionate and reasonable approach to public safety. It makes our prisons safer for peace officers and others who work there, saves scarce correctional resources for those who remain a risk and gives people in prison (who are often victims and survivors of violent crime) an opportunity to atone for their crimes. 

Most people released by the board work to help others in our communities process their trauma in healthy ways and stop the cycle of violence.

Some recent proposals to change the parole process, while well intentioned, would interject politics into the board’s process or immediately change who and when people in prison will be eligible for a parole hearing. Both would result in many years of expensive litigation at tax payers’ expense. History has shown that when the board denies parole to people who are no longer dangerous, the courts will intervene. And taking away a person’s right to a parole hearing will likely be reversed by the courts as a violation of the constitution. 

If there is a concern that people who continue to pose a risk for sexually violent crimes will be released by the board, despite its rigorous process and history of sound decisions, there are more practical, cost-effective and evidence-based ways of building additional safeguards into the process. 

The first step should be to consult experts in forensic psychology, risk assessment research, treatment of sexually violent predators and attorneys who understand the complex and expensive history of parole litigation in California.