California cannot keep shifting the goalposts on parole | Opinion

California’s parole grant rate is already among the lowest in the nation, but a handful of high-profile parole cases and a steady drumbeat of false claims about how the state’s parole system works have fueled a package of bills that would diminish the state’s elderly parole program and restrict parole overall. Before these measures return us to the prison overcrowding the Supreme Court found unconstitutional 15 years ago, Californians deserve the evidence — not just the fear — behind a policy debate with fiscal costs and human consequences.

I have spent more than 25 years representing people serving life sentences, watching the parole board weigh who they were against the person they had become, then seeing clients rejoin and strengthen their communities. Our released clients almost never return to prison, yet lawmakers want to weaken parole anyway. In 2025, only 11% of people were granted parole. A decade ago, it was almost double that.

Now, two bills would make a notoriously restrictive process even harder.

Unconstitutional proposal

Among several dangerous elements, Senate Bill 1446, introduced by the Committee on Public Safety, would dismantle safeguards that aim to keep the parole process insulated from political pressure and to follow basic due process protections. One alarming provision of the legislation would allow a parole grant to be revoked without first providing the person with a due process hearing. This flies in the face of half a century of California Supreme Court precedent recognizing that people granted parole must be given a hearing before their parole is withdrawn.

In addition to being unconstitutional, this bill risks parole decisions being overturned without a full and fair review. My very first parole client was released only after undergoing this review process. He went on to graduate college, build a career, raise children and become a valued member of his community. Had his parole been rescinded without a hearing, none of that would have been possible.

In addition, SB 1446 would make individual parole commissioners’ votes public during the en banc process, exposing them to political pressure in high-profile cases. During an en banc review, the full parole board considers whether there was an error or new information should be considered. But the public already has access: these en banc hearings are open to the public and final decisions are published.

What remains confidential are individual votes, allowing commissioners to evaluate cases based on the evidence rather than public opinion, much like jury deliberations are protected. With SB 1446, the message is clear: vote to deny parole, or risk public backlash and political consequences.

Aging out of crime

Meanwhile, Assembly Bill 2727, authored by Assemblymember Stephanie Nguyen, D-Elk Grove, goes further. It would significantly delay elderly parole eligibility for people with certain sex offenses until they reach the age of 65 and have served at least 25 years of incarceration. California created its elderly parole program because research has long made clear that people change, and they age out of crime.

California’s elderly parole program is a fiscally responsible, evidence-based policy that allows rigorous consideration for release on parole supervision for eligible people who are at least 50 years old and have served at least 20 years of incarceration. The recidivism rate for people released through elderly parole is 1.8%.

“Aging out of crime” is one of the most established findings in criminal justice research. Since the elderly parole program was thrust into the spotlight, this year’s parole grant rate has already dipped to just 10.1%.

Shifting goalposts

What many of these bills ignore is how unlikely release already is: parole is exhaustive and restrictive. Being granted release often takes several hearings over many years — even decades — so someone who begins the process at 65 will likely die before they can be released. The median age of natural death in California prisons is 58. Coming home is rare, and the few who do come home are not the risk these bills portray them as.

California faces a structural budget deficit. The prison system already costs $17.5 billion a year — about a third of it driven by healthcare for an aging population. Every dollar saved is a dollar we can redirect to programs that make our neighborhoods safer like treatment, reentry support and services for survivors.

Evidence consistently shows that people released through parole are not a risk. They earn release only after taking accountability, demonstrating transformation, serving decades and undergoing extensive risk assessments. If these bills pass, the legislature will waste taxpayer dollars on a problem that doesn’t exist to score political points.

Keith Wattley is the founder and executive director of UnCommon Law, which provides legal representation and counseling to people eligible for release from California state prisons.

This story was originally published June 30, 2026 at 6:00 AM with the headline "California cannot keep shifting the goalposts on parole | Opinion."