Editorial: Lenient judges, lax parole boards imperil communities
In recent discussions surrounding criminal justice reform, the balance between public safety and rehabilitation has come under scrutiny, particularly in Massachusetts. The recent release of Jody Oleson, who was convicted of bludgeoning a 71-year-old man to death, highlights the ongoing concerns about lenient parole practices. Oleson was initially denied parole multiple times but was ultimately released after a fourth hearing, raising questions about the effectiveness of victim impact statements and the role of prosecutors in the parole process. Despite opposition from the Suffolk District Attorney’s office and the victim’s family, the parole board prioritized Oleson’s rehabilitation over community safety, reflecting a broader trend in which the rights of convicted criminals are increasingly prioritized over those of their victims.
This leniency is not an isolated incident. The case of Lawrence Reed, who was arrested for setting a woman on fire on a Chicago train, underscores the dangers of a system that allows repeat offenders to evade substantial punishment. With a staggering 22 prior arrests and a history of violent felonies, Reed’s recent charges have prompted prosecutors to assert that he poses a significant threat to public safety. However, the systemic issues of soft-on-crime policies and the leniency of judges and parole boards often leave law enforcement and prosecutors frustrated as they strive to protect communities. The recent Mattis decision, which allows for the possibility of parole for young offenders convicted of first-degree murder, further complicates the landscape, suggesting that age can mitigate accountability, despite the grave nature of their crimes.
As district attorneys like Timothy Cruz advocate for the victims who can no longer speak for themselves, the call for accountability among judges and parole boards grows louder. The message is clear: while efforts to rehabilitate offenders are important, they must not come at the expense of public safety. The community’s right to justice and protection should take precedence over leniency for those who have demonstrated a disregard for the law and the lives of others. It is imperative that the justice system reevaluates its priorities to ensure that victims’ voices are heard and that dangerous criminals do not walk free, endangering innocent lives once more.
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)
