Patterico's Pontifications

7/9/2005

L.A. Times Needs a Correction for Its Correction of that Story on Corrections

Filed under: Crime,Dog Trainer — Patterico @ 12:03 pm



On July 1, I told you that a Los Angeles Times article regarding California corrections policy had misstated the impact of California’s Three Strikes Law. I wrote the Readers’ Representative and was told that a correction would likely issue. The paper issued that correction today — but, as we will see later, today’s correction is itself incorrect. Today’s correction reads:

Elderly prisoners — A June 26 Los Angeles Times Magazine article about the increasing number of elderly prisoners in California said the state’s three-strikes law mandates life sentences without parole for certain repeat felons. In fact, on a third-strike felony sentence of at least 25 years to life, the offender is eligible for parole after serving at least 80% of the sentence. Also, the article gave the wrong first name for a prisoner at the California Medical Facility. He is Clyde Hoffman, not Claude.

These were not the only errors in the article, by a longshot. A previous correction relating to the same article read as follows:

Older prisoners — A Los Angeles Times Magazine article Sunday about the increasing number of elderly prisoners in California prisons incorrectly stated that former Gov. Gray Davis said that murderers would leave prison during his term only “in a pine box.” Although others have characterized his policy in this way, Davis did not actually make this remark. In addition, the article incorrectly stated that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger “is on exactly the same page” as Davis when it comes to releasing murderers. The governor, in fact, has granted parole to 84 convicted murderers whose sentences made them eligible for release, whereas Davis allowed five to be paroled. Also, the article incorrectly referred to the location of the California Institution for Women. It is in Chino, not Corona.

Whew! By my count, that’s five mistakes in one article. Are we done yet?

Actually, we’re not . . . because today’s correction is itself incorrect in asserting that “on a third-strike felony sentence of at least 25 years to life, the offender is eligible for parole after serving at least 80% of the sentence.” A prisoner serving a third-strike felony sentence of 25 years to life is eligible for parole only after serving 100% of the minimum sentence. (In re Cervera (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1073, 1076; for a Web citation, see footnote 14 to this opinion.) The 80% rule cited in today’s correction applies only to determinate sentences with no life component, such as are commonly served in second-strike cases.

The bottom line is, if you are sentenced to 25 years to life under the Three Strikes Law, you have to serve 25 actual years before you are eligible for parole.

It looks like David Shaw’s four experienced Times editors got it wrong, again. (Is he sorry he said that yet?)

P.S. For those keeping score at home, this is the third Patterico-inspired correction in as many days. The other two are mentioned here.

8 Responses to “L.A. Times Needs a Correction for Its Correction of that Story on Corrections”

  1. How would a judge even know when an inmate has served 80% of his life sentence?

    Xrlq (158f18)

  2. The Department of Corrections figures it out, but people sometimes challenge CDC’s policy in court, as happened in the Cervera case I cite. Does that help?

    Patterico (756436)

  3. Methinks we approach the day when it will occupy less bandwidth to note what the LAT has gotten right.

    Beldar (72bfc4)

  4. How would a judge even know when an inmate has served 80% of his life sentence?

    Reminds me of the old joke:

    Q: Have you lived here all your life?

    A: Not yet.

    Beldar (72bfc4)

  5. The Department of Corrections figures it out, but people sometimes challenge CDC’s policy in court, as happened in the Cervera case I cite. Does that help?

    No, it doesn’t. Frankly, it makes my brain hurt. The only thing worse than cracking a bad joke in the form of a question is getting an answer that isn’t a joke. What if the DOC screws up, and a parolee is still alive after serving 4n years behind bars and n more on parole?

    Xrlq (158f18)

  6. Ah. I didn’t recognize it as a joke, because a life sentence in California is not really a life sentence unless it’s LWOP (life without the possibility of parole). Or, it *may* be — but in 25 years, who knows?

    I feel a little humorless now, but I understand why.

    Patterico (756436)

  7. Anyway, the serious answer is that the percentages don’t apply to life sentences.

    The non-serious answer? Anything to make your brain hurt.

    Patterico (756436)

  8. I think the real lesson here is: don’t hire a freelance writer to write about sentencing policy.

    And don’t hire the freelance writer who wrote this story for anything. (Sheesh, five mistakes . . . Eric Slater got fired for a story that had four!)

    Patterico (756436)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1622 secs.