Eight years ago, then-Gov. Jerry Brown hoodwinked California voters into making it easier for violent sex offenders to shorten their prison sentences.
A month ago, the 2016 ballot measure that Brown sponsored, Proposition 57, allowed one of the state’s most notorious serial rapists, Andrew Luster, to be granted parole after serving less than half of his 50-year prison term. Three weeks later the Legislature passed a bill to close the loophole in Prop. 57 that would allow Luster to be released.
When Brown proposed Prop. 57 to voters, he said it would benefit only those convicted of nonviolent crimes by allowing them to qualify more easily for parole.
“It’s well-balanced,” Brown said at the time. “It’s thoughtful.”
However, Prop. 57 did not define what would be considered violent crimes, and opponents speculated that if passed, the measure could set some violent felons free.
Finally, after much prodding by journalists, Brown’s campaign acknowledged that only those convicted of violent crimes listed in Penal Code Section 667.5 would not qualify for early release.
However, the list was not a comprehensive catalog of violent crimes and didn’t include those deemed by the state Department of Justice as violent. Prop. 57 opponents, noting that rape of an unconscious person was among the serious crimes excluded from Brown’s list, argued that the measure could benefit violent sex offenders.
Brown deflected the criticism by promising that state prison officials would adopt regulations denying early parole to rapists who drugged their victims and other sex criminals. Voters passed Prop. 57 and the regulations promised by Brown were adopted.
However, attorneys for the 4,400 felons who had been excluded from early parole challenged their legality, arguing that the state could not, by regulation, modify the wording of a voter-approved ballot measure. Eventually the issue wound up in the state Supreme Court, which set aside the regulations in 2020.
“The initiative’s language provides no indication that the voters intended to allow the (Corrections) department to create a wholesale exclusion from parole consideration based on an inmate’s sex offense convictions when the inmate was convicted of a nonviolent felony,” Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye wrote in the unanimous decision.
In effect the decision gave date rapists and other sex offenders access to the lenient parole provisions of Prop. 57. They didn’t hesitate to use it, which brings us to Luster, an heir to the Max Factor makeup fortune.
Luster was arrested in 2000 after a student at a college in Southern California told police she had been raped. Ultimately he was charged with raping three women after rendering them unconscious with the date-rape drug GHB and videotaping the assaults.
After being freed on $1 million bail, Luster fled to Mexico, was convicted in absentia and sentenced to 124 years in prison. A bounty hunter captured him and he was returned to California to begin serving his time. An appeals court later reduced his sentence to 50 years.
Luster, now 60, was denied parole in 2022 and remained at Valley State Prison in Chowchilla. But on Aug. 8 the state parole board granted his parole request. The board and Gov. Gavin Newsom will now have a chance for further review.
Meanwhile state Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil of Modesto introduced Senate Bill 268,which adds rape of an unconscious person to the list of violent crimes that would disqualify those convicted for early parole. On the final night of the legislative session, 23 days after Luster won parole, a 40-0 Senate vote sent the bill to Newsom.
Two footnotes to this saga: On the day that Luster was being paroled, Alvarado-Gil announced she was switching parties from Democrat to Republican. Five days after SB 268 was approved, a former staff member sued her, claiming she had forced him to perform sexual acts. Her attorney has called the claim fabricated and outlandish.
Dan Walters is a CalMatters columnist
