What may parole boards consider?
mm
Dear Mod. The previous post should not have been a reply to another
post, and had the wrong subject line. Sorry. This is written
correctly but either one will do.
Are parole boards alllow to consider the seriousness of the original
crime when deciding on parole, or are they only allowed to consider
how the prisoner behaved in jail, whether it looks like he'll commit
crimes again (or only crimes of the same nature?) and whether he
appears to regret what he did?
For that matter, may all of these last 3 or 4 be considered?
I'd guess the last 4 vary by state, but "the seriousnes of the
original crime" I would bet is more consistent from state to state, so
that the primary question.
Robert Bonomi
Parole boards are allowed to consider anything that statute in that
jurisdiction does not _forbid_ them to consider, in addition to those
things that statute in that jurisdiction mandates that they _must_
consider.
_I_ know of =nothing= in any jurisdiction that specifies how much 'weight'
a parole board 'must' give to any specific factor, in the course of
their deliberations.
Bob
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>_I_ know of =nothing= in any jurisdiction that specifies how much 'weight'
>a parole board 'must' give to any specific factor, in the course of
>their deliberations.
In California, for life prisoners, the overarching consideration is
whether "the prisoner will pose an unreasonable risk of danger to
society if released from prison." 15 Cal. Code Regs. 2402(a); see
also In re Lawrence, 44 Cal. 4th 1181, 1209 (2008). The
"circumstances" to be considered in answering that question are "left
to the judgment of the panel." Id. at subdivision (c). However,
"[t]hese factors are designed to guide an assessment of the inmate's
threat to society, if released, and hence could not logically relate
to anything but the threat currently posed by the inmate." Lawrence,
44 Cal. 4th at 1206.
Robert Bonomi
Bob <x...@xxx.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 13:23:58 -0600, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com
>(Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>
>>_I_ know of =nothing= in any jurisdiction that specifies how much 'weight'
>>a parole board 'must' give to any specific factor, in the course of
>>their deliberations.
>
'overarching'? Seems to me that is satisfied if the board meets on top
of a viaduct. <grin>
Seriously, I cannot figure out what word you meant to use there.
Steve Bartman
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>'overarching'? Seems to me that is satisfied if the board meets on top
>of a viaduct. <grin>
>
>Seriously, I cannot figure out what word you meant to use there.
>
Overarching is a perfectly good word. It works in the context the OP
used it.
over�arch�ing (-i?)
adjective
1.forming an arch above or overhead
2.encompassing or linking all that is within its scope, range, etc. an
overarching theory, theme, etc.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/overarching
Steve
mm
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>In article <m150g5pq7b8dpfgsg...@4ax.com>,
>Bob <x...@xxx.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 13:23:58 -0600, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com
>>(Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>>
>>>_I_ know of =nothing= in any jurisdiction that specifies how much 'weight'
>>>a parole board 'must' give to any specific factor, in the course of
>>>their deliberations.
>>
>>In California, for life prisoners, the overarching consideration is ...
>
>'overarching'? Seems to me that is satisfied if the board meets on top
>of a viaduct. <grin>
>
>Seriously, I cannot figure out what word you meant to use there.
He used the right word.
1. forming an arch above: great trees with overarching branches.
2. encompassing or overshadowing everything: The community's
overarching needs are more jobs and better housing.
Almost strangely, I think, when I looked up overarch in the same
source, dictionary.com , not only was there no definiton that matched
number 2 above -- and that's fine -- but there was not even a
reference to overarching. Maybe my expectations are too high.
Bob
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>In article <m150g5pq7b8dpfgsg...@4ax.com>,
>Bob <x...@xxx.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 13:23:58 -0600, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com
>>(Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>>
>>>_I_ know of =nothing= in any jurisdiction that specifies how much 'weight'
>>>a parole board 'must' give to any specific factor, in the course of
>>>their deliberations.
>>
>>In California, for life prisoners, the overarching consideration is ...
>
>'overarching'? Seems to me that is satisfied if the board meets on top
>of a viaduct. <grin>
>
>Seriously, I cannot figure out what word you meant to use there.
It's the same word the California Supreme Court used in Lawrence:
"These cases emphasize that public safety is the overarching
consideration for both the Board and the Governor . . .."
44 Cal. 4th at 1209.
A dictionary definition: "dominating or embracing all else"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/overarching
In this context - and in many legal contexts - if you have multiple
factors to consider, an "overarching consideration" would arch over
(and dominate) all of the factors.
Robert Bonomi
Steve Bartman <sbar...@visi.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:57:08 -0600, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com
>(Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>
>>'overarching'? Seems to me that is satisfied if the board meets on top
>>of a viaduct. <grin>
>>
>>Seriously, I cannot figure out what word you meant to use there.
>>
>Overarching is a perfectly good word. It works in the context the OP
>used it.
live and learn. :)
>over�arch�ing (-i?)
>
>adjective
>
>1.forming an arch above or overhead
>2.encompassing or linking all that is within its scope, range, etc. an
>overarching theory, theme, etc.
>
>http://www.yourdictionary.com/overarching
I checked several reputable dictionaries, and did -not- find the second
meaning listed above.
Bob
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>>1.forming an arch above or overhead
>>2.encompassing or linking all that is within its scope, range, etc. an
>>overarching theory, theme, etc.
>>
>>http://www.yourdictionary.com/overarching
>
>I checked several reputable dictionaries, and did -not- find the second
>meaning listed above.
Have you tried any disreputable dictionaries? :-)
Try this meta dictionary:
For me, overarching is one of those words I didn't start
hearing/reading until I started law school. Not that it doesn't exist
outside the legal field, just doesn't seem to be used as much.
Disingenuous is another of those words.
Barry Gold
>>over�arch�ing (-i?)
>>
>>adjective
>>
>>1.forming an arch above or overhead
>>2.encompassing or linking all that is within its scope, range, etc. an
>>overarching theory, theme, etc.
>>
>>http://www.yourdictionary.com/overarching
Robert Bonomi <bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>I checked several reputable dictionaries, and did -not- find the second
>meaning listed above.
The second meaning is listed in the following online dictionaries:
Onelook
http://onelook.com
American Heritage Dictionary
http://education.yahoo.com
Microsoft Encarta
http://encarta.msn.com
Cambridge INternational
http://dictionary.cambridge.org
Wiktionary
http://en.wiktionary.org
Merriam Webster
http://www.merriam-webster.com
Websters New World College Dictionary
http://www.yourdictionary.com
Infoplease Dictionary
http://dictionary.infoplease.com
Free Dictionary
http://www.freedictionary.org
Dictionary.com
--
Barry Gold, webmaster:
Conchord: http://www.conchord.org
Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society, Inc.: http://www.lasfsinc.org