On Wednesday of this week, the Inspector General of California, David Shaw, issued a 35-page special report on the parole supervision of John Albert Gardner III, the man who raped and murdered Amber Dubois and Chelsea King..
The report is scathing. Shaw says that the California Department of Correction’s parole supervision of John Gardner blew it in myriad ways with horrific results.
For example, he says:
“.. .it did not identify Gardner’s aberrant behavior, including unlawfully entering the grounds of a state prison––a felony––as well as numerous parole violations. Had the department identified Gardner’s criminal act and parole violations, it could have referred them to the district attorney or Board of Prison Hearings for appropriate action. Successful prosecution of Gardner’s crime could have sent Gardner back to prison, making it impossible for him to murder the two young girls and commit the attempted sexual assault.”
It seems that the primary reason that Gardner’s parole agents didn’t send him back to prison for his more than 158 parole violations, or the actual new felony he committed by gong on the grounds of a state prison, is because his parole officer didn’t know about about most of the violations, much less the prison incident—even though, all the while, Gardiner had a GPS tracking device on his ankle.
So why wouldn’t the tracking gadget alert Gardner’s PO that he was breaking his curfew with ridiculous frequency, that he was often in the proximity of schools and playgrounds, that he had a storage unit, which was strictly against the rules, that he visited creepily isolated spots (also against the terms of his probation and that he had committed an outright crime?
Shaw explains that the tracking device was only monitored thirteen percent of the time. The other 87 percent the GBS tracker was useless. It wasn’t watched at all.
(You can find the entire 35-page report here.)
These revelations are awful enough on their face because, had Gardner been monitored properly, he would have landed back in prison,—which means in turn that he wouldn’t have been able to kill 14-year-old Amber Dubois and 17-year-old Chelsea King.
The report also points beyond itself to say troubling things about California’s parole supervision in general. It doesn’t help that this comes at a time, when there is a strong push to let certain offenders out early, provided they have GPS monitoring.
I am someone who has been in favor of the monitoring option for certain cases. But if nobody’s keeping track of a braceleted, high control sex offender whose jacket includes several alarming reports about his impulse control, why in the world should we think that the CDCR will keep tabs on run-of-the-mill GPS-wearing parolees?
We must also have the confidence that when officials call an offender “low level”—that a proper and thorough assessment of the parolee’s entire record has been done, not merely a glance at his/her most recent crime. Unfortunately this often seems not to be the case either.
If we are to have a chance at legislating real sentencing and parole reform, the public will need to know that the system is a lot better calibrated than what we evidently have now.
Many tragic crimes arrive without warning. However, with John Gardiner, it appears that there were red flags galore, but that they went unheeded. We need a system that is calibrated to see those flags and act on them appropriately.
(The San Diego Union has a story on the report, as does the LA Times.)
ON A RELATED TOPIC, SENTENCING REFORM IN SC
The Economist praises South Carolina’s sentencing reform package that was recently signed into law:
South Carolina’s Republican governor today signed off on a sentencing-reform law that passed the state’s Republican-controlled legislature by a wide margin. It reduces sentences for some non-violent offenders while increasing them for certain violent ones and it improves post-release supervision. It also ends the ridiculous sentencing disparity between powdered and rock cocaine, ends mandatory minimum sentences for first-time drug possession and lets more inmates participate in work-release programmes. It is also projected to save the state $400m over the next five years—no small potatoes for a state looking at a billion-dollar shortfall.
LAPD ACTS FAST ON PHOTOGRAPHER’S VIDEO OF OFFICER’S HARASSMENT
Zach Behrens reports for LAist that less than 24 hours after an LA photographer posted a video of an officer losing it with him over being photographed legally from a public sidewalk, the LAPD has triggered an investigation of the incident.
“Constitutional policing is very important to Chief Beck and we examine cases through that lens,” said Commander Richard Webb, who announced that his Internal Affairs group will conduct the investigation. “We will keep the Inspector General informed of the progress of the investigation which will ultimately be presented to the Chief of Police to determine if any discipline or retraining should take place.”
Good for Chief Beck and the LAPD. Quick action on a complaint goes a long way in building public confidence in the department.
You can watch the video here.
PS: I hate to harp on this, but had John Gardener been a gang member, rather than an upstreet sex offender who assaulted a 13-year-old, he would have been back to prison on a parole violation, lickety split.
As an addition to you caveat Celeste, I’ll submit that had John Gardiner been an active gang member he surely would have been “regulated” by his gang for such a dishonorable act as raping a child and most probably would have disappeared or wound up a mutilated corpse. Street justice has its place.
A few points, your last comment first, which Gava Joe picked up on too: I think it’s reasonable that known gang members be given special scrutiny, more than an “upstreet” (what does that mean? – “upmarket” as the Aussies say for upscale, or “down the street,” or…?) molester. Something about the pack mentality and repeat offenses, possible loyalty to the Mexican mafia (yes, I know that can be a red herring), etc. Assuming his “associates” don’t get him for it as GJ says.
But I totally agree with a couple of other key points: that a criminal’s entire record by looked at when deciding sentencing, not just the last strike, which if a misdemeanour can get a much more lenient sentence than s/he deserves. OR that can go the other way, too.
Also, absolutely true that if the public (and some law enforcement groups) are going to buy into the sensible notion of saving money and resources by releasing lowest level offenders to be able to focus on those we have to worry about most, there must be better parole supervision.
Or else we give fodder to the hardliners. Yesterday’s LAT story by Patrick McGreevy (one of their more reliable writers, I think, along with Sam Quinones) about measures passed by the Senate led off with contentious debates about banning plastic bags (BTW, they should allow substitution of biodegradable ones in that case, as even San Fran does) or charging at least a 5cent fee for paper only, and raising the age for admission to Kingergarten by 3 mos. (another bad idea, forcing some kids who are ready to stay in preschool a whole extra year, wasting time til they turn 6, just because some aren’t ready to learn to read yet, mostly due to cultural and linguistic issues), gets to this key topic only at the very end.
Sen. Mark Leno (D- S. F.) “said his bill would allow the state parole board to put prisoners on supervised parole if they determine that the person is both incapacitated and no risk to public safety.”
“Currently we have dozens and dozens of comatose inmates in…specialty care facilities with armed guards on each side of the bed 24/7,” Leno said. “This is a waste of taxpayer dollars.”
This measure, SB 1399,, “was opposed by Republican lawmakers, including Sen. Tom Harman”…”I don’t think we should be letting people out of prison for anything” he said.
Really, is Polanski were comatose and costing the state a billion bucks a year, I think he and Cooley, and of course most conservative of all Eastman, would still insist on keeping him in jail and a show trial to prove whose toughest. How dumb.
MEANWHILE, just as the state is likely to legalize medical pot, how much is it costing our broke city along (never mind the County) to defend itself against the 16 lawsuits currently pending, with more to be filed, for putting out of business almost all the dispensaries as of Monday? (That figure also from the LAT.) There seems to be some sort of battle between two judges on this case, with the always controversial Jaffe having sided with Cooley- Trutanich and judge (Chaleff? — sorry no time to recheck) pointing out that the city ordinance as drafted under the city attorney’s “advice” means no dispensaries can operate in 95% of the city, possibly giving legit claim to dispensary lawyers and patient advocates who claim this unduly deprives them of prescribed medication.
GJ, you’re entirely right about the “regulated” issue. Or at least that’s how it used to be. They also used to regulate people for using. But that’s been gone for a long time.
SBL, I’m not arguing that certain gang members don’t merit high control, they assuredly do. But I’d like to see our parole evaluation and categorization get much smarter. The cops feel it’s faulty from their end, and social justice folks like me think it’s badly calibrated too.
Thus truly terrible guys like Gardner slip through the cracks and people who are trying to set things right in their lives but who slip up in small (non-criminal) ways, but who have a gang jacket, often get nabbed and sent back on dopey violations.
(I mean 158 parole violations plus a trip on the grounds of a prison, which is a felony??? It boggles the mind. Whereas I know a guy right now—a former gang member, of course—who was told by his P.O. that he’ll be violated and sent back if he goes out of town for a weekend as part of a verifiable job training program.)
And, yes, SB 1399 is the kind of thing that other, supposedly more conservative states are embracing, but that “progressive” California wants to reject out of hand. It drives me round the bend.
(I agree about McGreevy and Sam Quinones. Both excellent reporters.)
Basically, what this seems to point out is how ineffective home confinement is going to be as an alternative to actual incarceration. I had been hoping this would have been more effective since our state’s prisons are getting way too crowded.
The Mexican Mafia doesn’t exist.
[…] WitnessLA.com » Blog Archive » The Sad Bad Lesson of John Ga.. […]