Editorial: Lenient judges, lax parole boards imperil communities
In recent discussions surrounding public safety and criminal justice reform, the role of judges and parole boards has come under intense scrutiny, particularly in Massachusetts. The case of Jody Oleson, who was released on parole last week after serving time for the brutal murder of 71-year-old Alfred Fisher, exemplifies the growing frustration with a system perceived as lenient toward violent offenders. Oleson, who had previously been denied parole multiple times, was ultimately granted freedom despite strong opposition from the Suffolk District Attorney’s office and Fisher’s family. This incident raises critical questions about the weight of victim impact statements and the overall direction of a justice system that increasingly prioritizes the rehabilitation of offenders over the rights and voices of victims.
The trend of releasing repeat offenders is not confined to Massachusetts. A stark example emerged from Chicago, where Lawrence Reed, a suspect in the horrific fire-setting of 26-year-old Bethany MaGee, faced federal terrorism charges. Reed’s extensive criminal history, including 22 prior arrests and nine felony convictions, raises alarms about the effectiveness of a justice system that has allowed him to serve only a fraction of the time for his crimes. Prosecutors have expressed concerns about his potential danger to the community, yet the system often fails to keep such individuals incarcerated long enough to prevent further harm. This pattern of leniency extends beyond individual cases and reflects a broader ideological shift within the justice system, where the focus has increasingly shifted towards viewing criminals as victims of circumstance, often to the detriment of public safety.
The implications of these lenient policies are profound. Recent legal decisions, such as the Mattis ruling that eliminates life sentences without parole for those under 21, further illustrate a justice system grappling with how to balance accountability and rehabilitation. District Attorney Timothy Cruz’s commitment to advocating for victims like Travis Powell, whose killer was also granted parole, underscores the urgent need for reform. As police and prosecutors strive to protect communities, it is essential for judges and parole boards to recognize their role in this equation. The call for accountability is growing louder, as advocates argue that true justice must prioritize the voices of victims and ensure that dangerous individuals are not released back into society prematurely. In a climate where public safety hangs in the balance, the need for a more balanced approach to justice is critical.
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)
