California’s parole system is tough, be careful with it

By Jennifer Shaffer, especially for CalMatters

This comment was originally posted by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

Guest Comment written by

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

Before making changes to any system, you must first understand the existing system.

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

Unlike on board the hearing process is difficult — as it should be. In 2025, less than 11% of scheduled parole hearings resulted in parole being granted. Only 3% of people released by the council are convicted of a new offense within three years of release. (Less than 1% are convicted of a new crime involving injury to another person.) The percentage of people granted parole under the Elderly Parole Program is even lower.

Legal board must grant parole if an individual no longer poses a current, unjustified risk.

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

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

Understandably, most people have no reason to know about this area of ​​forensic psychology, nor would they want to, because sexual assault is one of the most difficult topics to discuss and understand.

Victims and survivors have the right to participate in parole hearings, as do prosecutors. The board hears firsthand the impact of these crimes. However, this does not change the council’s statutory duty to grant parole if a person no longer poses a risk.

Although 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, probation officers, police officers and others who work long hours to make the most informed decisions possible.

More than 11,000 people have been safely released overboard since 2012. Is the system perfect? Of course not. It is a process that involves people. However, it is the most modern, 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 foster rehabilitation—is a compassionate and common-sense 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 at risk, and gives people in prison (who are often victims and survivors of serious crimes) an opportunity to atone for their crimes.

Most people released from the board work to help others in our communities work through their trauma in a healthy way and stop the cycle of abuse.

Some recent proposals to change the parole process, while well-intentioned, would inject politics into the board process or immediately change who and when people in prison would be eligible for a parole hearing. Both would lead to many years of costly litigation at taxpayer expense. History shows that when the board denies parole to people who are no longer dangerous, the courts will step in. And taking away a person’s right to a parole hearing is likely to be struck down by the courts as unconstitutional.

If there are concerns that people who continue to pose a risk of 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 to build additional safeguards into the process.

The first step should be to consult with 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.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and is republished under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives license.