The family of Laci Peterson is leading opposition to a new California parole board policy. They argue the guidelines could open the door for resentencing or clemency for serial killers and mass murderers.
Public safety advocates and victims’ families filed a lawsuit last month. They seek to block changes to the state’s parole system, which they say could allow some people serving life sentences without parole to eventually be released.
The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a nonprofit group behind the lawsuit, is working with victims' families. They aim to stop the board’s new policy before it goes into effect in October.
Impact on high-profile cases
The new policy creates a guideline where prisoners with long sentences could be granted resentencing hearings. If they lose their life without parole sentences, it could make it easier to free them on parole or for completed sentences.
This change could allow for Scott Peterson to walk free. He was convicted in the 2004 killing of 27-year-old Laci Peterson and their unborn son, Conner.
Scott Peterson was resentenced to life without the possibility of parole.
Laci Peterson was eight months pregnant when she disappeared from her Modesto, California, home on Christmas Eve in 2002. Prosecutors say Scott Peterson dumped his wife’s body in the Berkeley Marina on December 24, 2002, before reporting her missing.
Scott Peterson was arrested when the bodies of Laci and their unborn child washed ashore in San Francisco several months later. His 2005 death sentence was overturned in 2020, and he was resentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole in 2021.
Scott Peterson has maintained his innocence and is still fighting his conviction in court. Prosecutors have insisted that the amount of evidence against him is overwhelming.
Legal arguments and victim impact
Anne Marie Schubert, president and CEO of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, described the affected inmates as the worst offenders. She noted the group includes cop killers and baby killers.
Mass shooters, serial killers, cop killers are potentially eligible.
Schubert argued that the board is bypassing legislative limits. She stated that a previous bill limited to those under 26 failed, so officials used a bureaucratic process for everyone.
The petition filed in Sacramento's Superior Court on July 15 challenges the board's authority. It states the board expanded its recommendation authority into a full system of reviews resembling parole hearings.
The filing argues this parallels the system California voters sought to curb in 2008. The petition notes the board extended this to inmates convicted of first degree murder with special circumstances.
In public filings, the California parole board defended its position. It stated that penal code sections do not exclude individuals sentenced to life without parole from consideration.
Statutes grant the Board discretion to evaluate these cases.
Schubert countered that the law allows regulations related to parole. She argued that inmates with life without parole sentences do not get parole.
Victims, including Laci’s loved ones, argue that the policy change would force grieving families to repeatedly relive their trauma. Laci’s friend, Kim Juarez, said she accepted the earlier sentencing change because she believed it meant he would never be released.
The only certainty was that he wasn’t ever going to get out.
Juarez described the last two decades as repeatedly removing scabs. She said the possibility of Peterson's freedom is scary in itself, even if the likelihood is unknown.
Neither the parole board nor the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation responded to a request for comment.
