For starters, there’s this popular notion that if nobody is ever paroled under a Governor’s term, something is terribly wrong. That’s not necessarily true; these are killers. Some would insist on the more politically correct term of "murderers" instead of killers, and those who want Rosenkrantz back on the streets sometimes use the exceptional word "lifers." Even that last nickname, however, doesn’t help their case, as it makes it clear that these are convicts who are supposed to be in prison for the rest of their lives. How, then, can fulfillment of that promise be construed to be a denial of due process.

Secondly, I’d like to address the proper use of this term "due process." What has been strongly implied to those of us motivated to pay attention, is that if a killer’s parole date arrives and he is denied parole, he has been denied due process. More reasonable people maintain that due process has been denied only if the decision is part of a blanket policy. Paul Gutman’s Superior Court decision rests on that premise. Actually, these suppositions are both wrong, and the Gutman ruling should scare everybody. Due process is part of the conviction. If the trial was proper, the defendant convicted, parole can be denied for the rest of his life and due process will have been served.

Thirdly, there is a substantial contingent of law-abiding, reasonable people who do not believe in the concept of rehabilitation in prison. They believe that if someone kills, and is subsequently free, that killer poses at least a substantial potential of killing again. These people are slowly losing their right to have that opinion, even in this country where free speech and individual ideas are constitutionally protected. Everyone has a right to disagree with these people, speak out about it, vote against it, but the opinion remains reasonable, constitutional, and valid. Besides, there is significant evidence to suggest they’re right. These people have a right to put executives into public office who will make sure killers are not released ever again, so long as they can muster the votes to do it. You can’t show me where this conflicts with any constitution. The conflict rests solely on the Gutman ruling, in which constitutional dictates of "due process" are not interpreted, but created.

Next, much in this issue has been made of California’s "conservative" standards of parole. Lest people forget, "conservative," "moderate," and "liberal" are labels meant to deprive people of their rights & obligations to make decide for themselves about such issues. People shouldn’t let others decide this for them through the use of labels. Just my opinion, but keeping killers in jail is "moderate." Letting them out for any reason is what I’d call "extreme." Letting one out because parole has been denied to other people, and the numbers don’t make you happy, is "radical." But I’d encourage people to decide on such labels for themselves.

Finally, think for a minute about what an anti-death-penalty or pro-parole zealot really knows. Nothing special, really. They’re not experts, they’re just normal, compassionate people who personally find something opprobrious and distasteful. That’s entirely their perogative, but they don’t know that a parolee won’t kill your child, even though a lot of them deceptively claim to know that very thing. Nor are they culpable in any way, criminally or civilly, if this idea later turns out to be wrong, heaven forbid. Most of them haven’t put any thought into the idea of their own relatives becoming victims of violent crime; for the most part, they really haven’t thought about much of anything. They’ve only thought of how sorry they would be if they were in the position of the inmate, convicted of a crime they didn’t commit. That scenario has made a lot of good movies, but more often than not, it has nothing to do with the subject of whether a violent convict should receive parole.

What’s written above deals with general issues related to the subject of parole for someone who has killed in the past. What follows applies specifically to Mr. Rosenkrantz.

Someone at one or several advocacy groups has decided that among convicts who should be paroled, and aren’t, this guy is the poster child. I fail to see why. Contrary to popular belief, persons closest to his case have not come away with the impression that his punishment exceeded his crime, or for that matter, his potential to re-offend. One of the writers to The Bee, for example, wanted to know why we should even have a parole board when parole is never granted. I agree we should question the existence of the parole board under the circumstances, but disagree about the circumstances. Most people don’t realize, the Board of Prison Terms found him unsuitable for parole, and the BPT was overruled by the courts.

Perhaps these advocates are motivated because the killer has been well-behaved since his conviction. But several murderers are well-behaved, especially ones that did their initial crime with fully automatic weaponry, as he did. There simply aren’t any guns available in prison. Under such circumstances, how could a machine-gun killer fail to be well-behaved? In this entire debate, nobody has ever explained that to me.

Gutman, and those who support his decision, have said Gov. Davis did not supply adequate evidence that Rosenkrantz remained a threat to society. Some say Davis didn’t even show he studied the details of the case. In fact, the Governor studied, and he supplied hard evidence. Many of the Governor’s statements, in fact, show a knowledge of the case that far surpasses what most ordinary citizens know from their news, or would be able to know with their limited access to the information. Such knowledge certainly exceeds what most proponents of Rosenkrantz’s release, know about the case they have chosen to champion. This is the "Big Lie" technique. That Davis hasn’t studied the case, is simply not true, but if you hear it enough times maybe you’ll come to believe it. This is how Hitler managed to take over a country and kill millions of people. It has been a popular practice and one should not be surprised to see radical activists using it. To read about a Superior Court Judge using it, and in an official ruling no less, is really shocking and raises a lot of disturbing questions.

At the much-talked-about parole hearing of 9/9/99, the commissioner reported "the panel found that the offense was carried out in especially cruel or callous manner and that it was carried out in a dispassionate or calculated manner, such as an execution style murder, and that the offense was carried out in a manner which demonstrates an exceptionally callous disregard for human suffering." On that basis, Rosenkrantz was unanimously denied parole by the board. For those who believe "due process" is served at a parole hearing and not during a conviction, I suppose this ought to satisfy them. However, the BPT had to set a release date anyway because of a previous ruling made by Judge Kathryne Ann Stoltz six months earlier. The local ACLU, on their web site, only reports that the board voted to release him. That statement is as wrong in the letter as it is in the spirit.

Over and over again, judges think Rosenkrantz should be freed, and people who know the case better think he should be kept in jail. The judges are about to win, simply because they’re judges. It’s a clear abuse of power.

There is much more at stake here than the personal freedom of Robert Rosenkrantz. This case will decide whether killers are released according to the dictates of our state’s Executive branch, which is somewhat accountable to us through the ballot box, or through the Judicial branch, which is far less so, and has proven it’s ability to forget it’s boundaries. In pushing for Rosenkrantz’s speedy release, the courts have been very slim on interpretation of existing law, and very long on making new law. Some people who favor the concept of "judicial activism" think that’s just wonderful, but everyone agrees that’s not the way the system is designed to work.

Judicial activists are such short-sighted people. They fail to realize that tomorrow, we’ll all want to complain about The System. Something it mishandled, something it served poorly, a simple matter made more complicated by bureaucracy and incompetence. We will all have these complaints soon, and frequently. Shouldn’t we today use that system in the manner in which it was originally designed, so our complaints tomorrow will have some merit?

A substantial number of the activists that want Rosenkrantz to go free, are upset about what his victim did just before he was shot. They’d like these actions to be declared a capital crime. They’ll never admit this is their true motivation, but it is. This agenda is so ugly, so vile, and would have such terrible implications for the rest of us, it would never be ratified through our legislative process. Precedence being as strong as it is in legal matters, their stealth-campaign has a real chance at making law through our court system, without earning the respect or support of anyone outside of the fringe elements, or even being sponsored by anyone. This should never happen. *That* is why the courts are bound to interpret existing law, and not make new law.

Those who are thinking of sympathizing with or supporting the free-Rozenkrantz movement, should think very carefully. They should read the background of the case meticulously, which I would hope they would be inclined to do without anyone suggesting it first.

Morgan K Freeberg

You can e-mail Morgan at mkfreeberg@hotmail.com.

About Morgan K. Freeberg

Copyright © 2001 by Morgan K. Freeberg
All Rights Reserved.

-Published with permission