Opponents of the death penalty always claim that it is unnecessary for incapacitation because "life with absolutely no possibility of parole" does the same thing. But the legislature can always add parole back in later, as this effort shows.
My previous post had incorrectly characterized the bill.
Parents of Murdered Children
www.POMC.org
PRESS RELEASE
For Immediate Release
Contact: Nancy Ruhe, Parents of Murdered
Children 888-818-POMC
Dan Levey, cell
602-509-8672
Jennifer Bishop Jenkins,
NOVJL, 847-446-7073
HB2525 Pulled in
Facing Certain Legislative Defeat:
A Very Bad Bill for Victims of Violent Crime, Public Safety, and the Rule of
Law
(
"HB 2525 would have retroactively granted parole opportunities to offenders, most of whom are extremely violent murderers, sentenced to natural life without the possibility of parole. Anti-incarceration and pro-offender activists in several states lately have been attempting this approach to prison reform - trying to re-sentence offenders sentenced to natural life through legislation. This proposal was not only horribly re-traumatizing for victims of violent crime, and very bad public policy, for the obvious public safety reasons, and would have freed potentially some of the most violent and heinous criminals in the history of the state of Arizona; but would also pose a serious legal question of fairness. With witnesses dead, or gone, memories faded, evidence long lost, records not saved, etc - how could a fair parole hearing process ever have been possible? These offenders were sentenced to natural life. For the most part, they are there because they killed people - violent, horrible deaths. They were duly and appropriately sentenced to natural life, and that is the sentence they should serve. Prison reform activists should focus their efforts on non-violent criminals and better programs for offenders who will someday be released."
The victims groups were particularly happy to see the prompt
defeat of this legislation because it hammers home the most important point of
all: offender and prison reform advocates should not be retroactively proposing
parole for natural life sentences.
Victims groups stated that the bill would have violated the
following highlighted portions of the Arizona Constitution's provisions for
victims' rights:
2.1. Victims' bill of rights
Section 2.1. (A) To preserve and protect victims'
rights to justice and due process, a victim of
crime has a right:
1. To be treated with fairness,
respect, and dignity, and to be free from intimidation, harassment, or abuse,
throughout the criminal justice process.
2. To be informed, upon request, when the accused or convicted
person is released from custody or has escaped.
3. To be present at and, upon request, to be informed of all
criminal proceedings where the defendant has the right to be present.
4. To be heard at any proceeding involving
a post-arrest release decision, a negotiated plea, and sentencing.
5. To refuse an interview, deposition, or other discovery request
by the defendant, the defendant's attorney, or other person acting on behalf of
the defendant.
6. To confer with the prosecution, after the crime against the
victim has been charged, before trial or before any disposition of the case and
to be informed of the disposition.
7. To read pre-sentence reports relating to the crime against the
victim when they are available to the defendant.
8. To receive prompt restitution from the person or persons convicted
of the criminal conduct that caused the victim's loss or injury.
9. To be heard at any proceeding when any
post-conviction release from confinement is being considered.
10. To a speedy trial or
disposition and prompt and final conclusion of the case
after the conviction and sentence.
###
Leave a comment