Editorial: Lenient judges, lax parole boards imperil communities
In a troubling trend within the criminal justice system, recent events in Massachusetts highlight the ongoing tension between public safety and leniency towards offenders. The Massachusetts parole board made headlines last week by releasing Jody Oleson, a convicted murderer who bludgeoned 71-year-old Alfred Fisher to death in 2000. Despite being denied parole on three previous occasions, Oleson was granted release after a fourth hearing, much to the dismay of Fisher’s family and the Suffolk District Attorney’s office. This decision raises significant questions about the weight given to victim impact statements and the concerns voiced by prosecutors, suggesting a systemic shift where the rights of victims are increasingly overshadowed by a more progressive view of justice that tends to favor rehabilitation over accountability.
This pattern of leniency is not isolated to Massachusetts. In a separate incident, Lawrence Reed was arrested for allegedly setting 26-year-old Bethany MaGee on fire in Chicago. Despite having 22 prior arrests and a lengthy criminal history that includes multiple felonies, Reed has only served a total of two and a half years in prison. Prosecutors argued for his continued detention, emphasizing the clear danger he poses to the community, yet the outcome remains uncertain. These cases exemplify a broader issue within the justice system where dangerous individuals are frequently released back into society, often at the expense of public safety. The recent Mattis decision further complicates matters by eliminating life sentences without parole for young offenders, suggesting that age alone can mitigate the severity of violent crimes.
District attorneys like Timothy Cruz are vocal advocates for victims, emphasizing the need to prioritize their rights and safety over the leniency shown to offenders. Cruz’s commitment to opposing the release of violent criminals underscores the frustration felt by law enforcement and prosecutors who strive to protect communities while navigating a system that often appears to prioritize rehabilitation over justice. As the debate continues over how best to balance these competing interests, it is clear that accountability for offenders and justice for victims must remain at the forefront of discussions surrounding criminal justice reform. The call for reform is urgent, as communities deserve to feel safe and secure from those who have demonstrated a propensity for violence.
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)
