Currently forty-nine U.S. states have a “life without parole,” option for the most heinous offences in society. The only state without one is Alaska, which has a total population less than Pierce County.
Like most states, Washington has treated life without parole as a more-humane alternative to the death penalty in aggravated murder cases, and our state’s residents have largely adjusted to this change even while the capital punishment debate continues. After “Green River Killer” Gary Ridgway, received life without parole for the unthinkable cold-blooded rapes and murders of dozens of girls and young women, no criminal has yet been found to have committed worse crimes, so life without parole became a new standard for Washington’s most heinous. The ACLU was an advocate of this change, making the case that Life Without Parole gives victims closure faster than the Death Penalty because it is set following conviction, and survivors can move on without participating in endless appeals. Per the ACLU in the link above: “For these reasons, the survivors of murder victims often feel that the death penalty system only prolongs their pain and does not provide the resolution they need, while the finality of LWOP (life without parole) sentences allows them to move on, knowing justice is being served.”
Life without parole is considered such a definitive sentence in our state that the usual “risk assessment report” often required for other sentences by RCW 9.94A.500 is waived for life without parole cases, and therefore no risk report is part of the court record.
But now the Legislature is embarking on eliminating life without parole in House Bill 1189, and it’s not very well known. It’s rolled into the creation of a new parole system for lesser sentences, which might be appropriate for lower level crimes, but the two issues should each be considered separately for the benefit of the legislature and the public. i.e Legislators should be able to vote on whether to create a parole system, and vote separately on whether those who have been sentenced to life without parole should become eligible for parole. The two issues are entirely different. There is even a third issue, life without parole in the case of three-strikes offenders who did not murder but committed three serious crimes; this group should be discussed in a specific debate.
Recent Comments