Blog

The August 27, 2021 decision by the California parole board to recommend parole for Sirhan Sirhan was a just, rational and criminal justice-serving decision.

Fifty-three years ago Sirhan assassinated former U.S. Attorney General and U.S. Senator Robert F. Kennedy (D-NY). The year was 1968—one of the most violent political years in modern U.S. history.

Two of Kennedy’s sons—Douglas and Robert Jr.—supported Sirhan’s bid for parole.

After learning of the board’s decision, Robert Jr. issued this statement: “My father, I think, would be really happy today. My father believed in compassion. The ideals of our justice system are the possibility of redemption and the importance of forgiveness. He didn’t believe the justice system was just about revenge.”

Six of Kennedy’s children did not share those sentiments expressed by Robert Jr. They demanded more revenge. They vowed to fight Sirhan’s actual release “every step of the way,” by calling on the parole board reverse its decision, and failing that, by urging California Gov. Gavin Newsom to reject the board’s decision.

In their collective statement, the six Kennedy siblings stated: “We are devastated that the man who murdered our father has been recommended for parole. We adamantly oppose the parole and release of Sirhan Sirhan and are shocked by a ruling that we believe ignores the standards of parole of a confessed, first-degree murderer in the state of California.

The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, which prosecuted Sirhan, did not oppose Sirhan’s parole. Reform-minded District Attorney George Gascon implemented a new policy after his 2020 election that prosecutors from his office would no longer appear at parole hearings to oppose parole for inmates. The new policy is based on Gascon’s belief that the district attorney’s role in a criminal case ends at sentencing.

The district attorney’s office issued this statement: “The role of a prosecutor and their access to information ends at sentencing. If someone is no longer a threat to public safety after having served more than 50 years in prison, then the parole board may recommend release based on an objective determination. Our office policies take these principles into account and as such, our prosecutors stay out of the parole board hearing process.”

Gascon is correct.

Crime victims and district attorneys have no legitimate penological interest in the parole decision-making process.  

If the law grants to an individual a right to parole eligibility, the decision by the parole board to either grant or deny parole should be based on one dominant factor: does the individual pose an immediate threat to public safety or presents a reasonable likelihood of future dangerousness.  Other collateral issues should be utilized in reaching that determination: the individual’s rehabilitation efforts, acceptance of criminal responsibility, and release plan.

Demands for revenge—either by victims or politically motivated prosecutors—have no place in the American penal system. These demands can be heard, and accommodated, at the front end of the system—investigation, charging, prosecution and sentencing. These demands have no place at the back end of the system: prison assignments, penal conditions, classification determinations, security interests, or release decisions.

An example of how corrupt politics worms its way into the parole decision-making process was evidenced by a letter sent to the parole board by the Los County Sheriff’s Department opposing Sirhan’s release.

Who really gives a fuck what the LA County Sheriff’s Department thinks. It has been reported in multiple sources that the department’s 170 year history has been riddled with corruption, racism, and unwarranted excessive and lethal force against the very public, especially in minority communities, it has a responsibility to protect and serve.

That is the responsibility of law enforcement, period—protect and serve, not stick their noses in the parole decision-making process.

Whether Gov. Newsom will approve Sirhan’s parole remains to be seen. Like all governors, he is a political creature who will stick his middle finger in the air to see which way the political winds are blowing.