One California law's decision on the Menendez brothers' future hinges upon a single elected official
In the state of California, the governor holds a unique power when it comes to parole decisions for individuals convicted of murder. This power, introduced in 1988 through Proposition 89, allows the governor to affirm or block parole for individuals serving life sentences for murder, making California one of only two states in the US with such authority (the other being Oklahoma).
This power is currently under the spotlight with the California Board of Parole Hearings considering the release of Erik and Lyle Menendez, who have served decades in prison for the 1989 murder of their parents. The brothers' case has been a contentious one, with their life-without-parole sentences being reduced to 50-to-life, making them eligible for parole.
The parole board has so far denied their release, citing ongoing risk concerns, misconduct in prison, and the nature of their crime. Even if the parole board were to recommend parole, Governor Gavin Newsom would have 30 days to overturn the decision. Newsom could justify a veto by arguing that the brothers’ release would harm public safety or California’s moral fabric, or alternatively, permit release as a sign of judicial mercy and rehabilitation.
The governor's veto power has been shaped by political and judicial influences over the years. It was established in the 1980s in response to public outrage over the release of William Archie Fain, who was convicted of a 1967 killing and rape, and was later found guilty of other crimes after being released on parole. Governors have often used this power to deny parole in cases, particularly during the 1990s and early 2000s. Proposition 89 passed with 55% of the vote and is the only such power given to a governor in the United States.
In the Menendez brothers' case, their potential release has been contested by Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman, despite his predecessor, George Gascón, requesting it. The brothers have claimed abuse as the motive for killing their parents, but Hochman believes evidence to corroborate these allegations is "extremely lacking."
The brothers have some elements working in their favor, such as family and public support, encouraging recommendations from prison and corrections officials. However, the family of the victims, Jose and Kitty Menendez, are largely in favor of the brothers' release, which could heavily weigh the governor's decision.
In a broader context, this gubernatorial veto power is a significant factor in decisions like those involving the Menendez brothers. It provides an additional layer of review in serious murder parole cases, and its impact is felt particularly in high-profile cases.
Notably, the governor's veto power was recently exercised by Newsom in the case of Sirhan Sirhan, the assassin of US Sen. Robert F. Kennedy. Newsom denied parole for Sirhan, citing his "refusal to accept responsibility for his crime" and "lack of insight and accountability."
In conclusion, the gubernatorial veto power over parole cases is a unique California legal feature that has evolved over time. It remains a pivotal factor in decisions like those involving the Menendez brothers, shaping outcomes of high-profile parole cases and reflecting the governor's significant role in the justice system.
- The governor's veto power, a significant factor in decisions like the Menendez brothers' case, has its origins in policy-and-legislation, specifically the passage of Proposition 89 in 1988, and has been influenced by politics, particularly during the 1990s and early 2000s.
- The Menendez brothers' case is a high-profile example of the impact of the gubernatorial veto power in decisions about policy-and-legislation, specifically in regards to crime-and-justice, and it underscores the role of the governor in shaping general-news stories.
