Editorial: Lenient judges, lax parole boards imperil communities
In recent weeks, the issue of criminal justice reform and its implications for public safety has gained renewed attention, particularly in Massachusetts. The state’s parole board has come under fire for releasing individuals with violent pasts, raising concerns about the effectiveness of current policies in protecting communities. A striking example is the case of Jody Oleson, who was granted parole despite having bludgeoned a 71-year-old man, Alfred Fisher, to death in 2000. Oleson, who had previously been denied parole multiple times, was finally released after a fourth hearing, despite strong opposition from both the Suffolk District Attorney’s office and Fisher’s family. This decision highlights a troubling trend within the justice system, where the voices of victims and their families often seem to carry little weight against the leniency shown towards offenders.
The broader implications of such decisions extend beyond Massachusetts, as evidenced by the case of Lawrence Reed in Chicago. Reed, accused of setting a woman on fire, has a lengthy criminal history with 22 prior arrests and multiple felonies, yet has only served a total of 2.5 years in prison. Prosecutors have expressed their concerns about Reed posing a persistent threat to public safety, but the system’s response raises questions about accountability and the prioritization of victims. Critics argue that an increasingly progressive justice system appears to view criminals as victims themselves, often sidelining the needs and rights of those they’ve harmed. The recent Mattis decision, which allows for the possibility of parole for young offenders convicted of first-degree murder, further complicates this issue, suggesting that the age of an offender can mitigate the severity of their crimes.
As district attorneys like Timothy Cruz advocate for the rights of victims and push back against the release of violent offenders, the call for reform becomes more urgent. The narrative surrounding criminal justice needs to shift from a focus on rehabilitating offenders to a balanced approach that also prioritizes community safety and justice for victims. With police and prosecutors striving to uphold the law, there is a growing demand for accountability among judges and parole boards. The ultimate goal must be to ensure that justice for victims is not merely a fleeting hope, but a fundamental principle guiding the justice system.
We can do all the right things to keep communities safe — pass common-sense police budgets, boost officer hiring, and encourage dialogue between law enforcement and the people they serve. But all that is fruitless if lenient judges and lax parole boards cut criminals loose at the first opportunity.
The Massachusetts parole board was at it again last week, releasing Jody Oleson — who was 25 when he was out on parole and bludgeoned a 71-year-old man to death. He was found guilty in 2000 of the second-degree murder of Alfred Fisher, who was killed in his Southie apartment.
Oleson was denied parole after an initial hearing in 2013, and after review hearings in 2018 and 2023. Fourth time’s the charm, and Oleson is out, despite opposition from the Suffolk DA’s office and from Fisher’s family.
Why do victim impact statements from family members and pushback from prosecutors bear so little weight?
An increasingly progressive justice system sees criminals as victims, and victims are inconsequential. That’s long before a perpetrator starts their prison sentence, however truncated. And that’s not just in Massachusetts.
Earlier this month, 26-year-old Bethany MaGee was set on fire on a Chicago train. Suspect Lawrence Reed was arrested the next day and hit with federal terrorism charges, according to the New York Post.
Reed had 22 prior arrests since 2016, and 53 criminal cases in Cook County dating back to 1993 — nine of them felonies for which he pleaded guilty, officials said.
But he’s only served time twice, spending just two and a half years behind bars in total, according to CWB Chicago.
At a hearing Friday, prosecutors asked the court to keep him in custody, arguing that he “presents a clear danger and persistent threat of terror to the community,” ABC News reported.
No kidding. But prosecutors don’t always get what they ask for, which is to keep dangerous people off the streets. Ask those in district attorney’s offices around the Bay State who go before our parole board to plea on behalf of victims’ families and communities, only to watch as convicted murderers walk free.
The latest ace in the hole for the criminal coddling crowd is the recent Mattis decision, which nixes the sentence of life in prison without parole for those convicted of first-degree murder if they were 20 or younger at the time of the crime.
Their brains are “emerging.” That may be true, but homicide is not a rite of passage for young adults.
“As district attorney, I will always speak up for murder victims like 21-year-old Travis Powell, who no longer have a voice,” DA Timothy Cruz said as Powell’s killer, Nathaniel Harbin, was granted parole last week.
“We will continue to oppose the release of violent criminals who ignore our laws and have forever harmed innocent people in our communities.”
Police and prosecutors are doing yeoman’s work to keep our communities safe and to keep people like Lawrence Reed from escaping justice only to harm again.
Soft-on-crime judges and lax parole boards must be held accountable. Justice for victims has to be more than a fleeting hope.
Editorial cartoon by Gary Varvel (Creators Syndicate)
