Early release program for aging inmates helps clear out California prisons, but at what cost?

Thirty years ago, before he was sentenced for repeatedly raping his 14-year-old niece in Moreno Valley, Cody Klemp told a probation officer that if he was ever released from custody he would kill the girl for reporting him.

It seemed like he would never get that opportunity when a judge sentenced him to 170 years in prison.

Now, however, Klemp awaits a parole hearing Thursday, Oct. 24, that could free him under a program designed to reduce California’s prison population and slash medical costs by releasing aging, often infirm inmates. The Elderly Parole Program offers parole hearings for those at least 50 years old who have served 20 continuous years of incarceration — even murderers and violent sex offenders.

Klemp, who was 34 when he sexually assaulted his niece in 1990 and had prior convictions for rape and attempted rape, is 68 now.

Since the Elderly Parole Program was established a decade ago, more than 3,000 convicted felons have been released from prison after serving only a fraction of their sentences, including a twice-convicted murderer from San Diego who was released in January.

While parole officials insist they conduct diligent screening of early release prospects and that the program has helped to dramatically reduce the state’s prison population, opponents say it further traumatizes victims. And they want certain offenders to be excluded from early release.

“We absolutely agree with giving people a second chance, but at the risk of who?” said Klemp’s victim, now 49. “To let someone out after not serving their sentence, when the victim will be serving theirs for the rest of their life, is to say your trauma does not matter and your suffering is in vain.”

Origins of Elderly Parole Program

The Elderly Parole Program was created in 2014 under a court order stemming from a class-action lawsuit. It prompted California’s prison system to establish new policies and programs to thin out its bulging population and reduce bed capacity. The program also was intended to ease the cost and burden of aging prisoners straining the prison health care system.

According to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, more than 27,500 inmates in the prison system are at least 50 years old.

In its infancy, the program established that inmates 60 years of age who served 25 years of continuous incarceration were eligible for early release. In 2018, the Legislature codified the program into law and it was incorporated into the state Penal Code. In 2021, the law was amended, dropping the age qualifying a prisoner for early release from 60 to 50 and reducing the length of required continuous incarceration from 25 to 20 years.

But not all prisoners qualify for early release under the program when they turn 50. Excluded are those sentenced to death or life without the possibility of parole, those sentenced under California’s three-strikes law as a second- or third-striker and those convicted of first-degree murder of a peace officer. However, these offenders do qualify for early release once they turn 60 and have served 25 years of continuous incarceration.

The Elderly Parole Program has contributed to a nearly 30% decline in the state prison population, which dropped from 135,600 inmates in 2014 to 95,700 in 2022, according to CDCR records.

How the program works

The parole board gives special consideration to a prisoner’s diminished physical condition when considering him or her for early release. On some occasions, they are granted parole due to debilitating medical conditions, such as a stroke or terminal illness, said Jessica Blonien, chief counsel for the Board of Parole Hearings and an expert on the Elderly Parole Program.

Months before a scheduled parole hearing, a forensic psychologist conducts a thorough evaluation of the prisoner to gauge his or her suitability for release, then prepares a report for parole board review prior to the hearing, Blonien said.

Board of Parole Hearings Executive Officer Jennifer P. Shaffer said the board employs “a very thorough and robust individualized consideration process.”

“It’s really based on what we know to be true from decades of published research on what makes someone at risk for recidivating to recommit crimes,” Shaffer said. “They have to show that they no longer pose an unreasonable risk in order to be released, and it’s a really high bar.”

Should parole be granted, the decision then goes to the governor for review. The governor either approves the release or sends the recommednation back to the Board of Parole Hearings for another review before the full board. That’s what happened in Klemp’s case. He was granted parole in November 2023, but Gov. Gavin Newsom blocked it in March and requested the full board take another look at his case.

According to CDCR statistics, about two-thirds of prisoners have been denied early release under the Elderly Parole Program since its inception. From 2014 through August this year, the Board of Parole Hearings held 10,649 elderly parole hearings — at a clip of about 160 a month — and granted parole to 3,366 people, about 32%, according to CDCR data.

Local offenders

Among some of the noteworthy violent offenders from Southern California who were recently granted parole or who now qualify for early release under the Elderly Parole Program are:

• Charles William Mix, 69, of Fontana, who is serving a 350-year sentence for the 2003 kidnapping and sexual assault of a 5-year-old girl he abducted from her Riverside home and drove to Utah. He was denied parole during a hearing on Sept. 25 but is eligible for another hearing in seven years.
• Walter Joseph Lewis, 77, of San Diego was granted parole in January after serving 44 years of a life sentence in prison for the March 1979 murder of 36-year-old Robert Chartier in his San Diego home. Lewis, who had a prior murder conviction for stabbing a 55-year-old man to death in a laundromat in 1966 at the age of 18, had been out of prison for that offense only six months before he killed Chartier in a jealous rage, striking him in the head repeatedly with a claw hammer after forcing his way into his home.
• Andrew Stuart Hodgins, 62, was sentenced in 2000 to 42 years to life in prison for the shotgun murder of 42-year Michel Pelletier as he slept in his Fullerton home in June 1997. He was granted parole on March 7, but Gov. Newsom sent the case back to the Board of Parole Hearings for a review by the full parole board. Another hearing is scheduled for Dec. 19.
• Oscar Mendez, 57, was convicted on 20 criminal counts, including lewd or lascivious acts with a child under the age of 14 and possession of child pornography, in connection with the sexual abuse and exploitation of two boys from October 2003 to March 2004 in Santa Ana. Mendez, who was 36 at the time of the offenses, was sentenced to 30 years to life in prison, but now qualifies for early release. He has a parole hearing scheduled for Oct. 24, the same day as Klemp.

One prominent offender already released under the Elderly Parole Program was Sean Ramiro Lopez, a former eighth-grade English teacher at Clement Middle School in Redlands who was convicted of sexually assaulting three male students at his home from 1999 until his arrest in 2002.

Lopez, 51, drugged his victims and instructed them to masturbate while watching pornographic films before extracting their semen using a syringe. He told the boys it was part of genetics study for a weightlifting supplement.

At his December 2023 parole hearing, Lopez spoke candidly about the shame and guilt he felt about his attraction to adolescent males. He said his victims satisfied his physical and emotional needs for intimacy and helped him cope with feelings of loneliness and insignificance.

Lopez, categorized by the state as a “very low risk” offender, served 22 years of a 74-year sentence before he was released from prison on May 1. He is currently residing in a transitional living facility in Palm Desert, according to the Megan’s Law database.

Like Lopez, about 90% of parolees who have served lengthy prison sentences are required to transfer to a transitional living facility for six months to a year to continue their rehabilitation, said Shaffer, the parole board executive officer.

“Most people granted parole by the board have strong a support network in the community or develop one through their time in transitional housing,” Shaffer said. “It is very rare for a person who has been granted parole by the board and who is on parole in the community to be unhoused. The overwhelming majority find housing after their transitional housing ends.”

Exclude violent sex offenders

Even among those who offer some support for the Elderly Parole Program, they draw the line at including violent sex offenders.

Kamaria Henry, managing deputy district attorney for the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office, believes such offenders should not qualify for the program, contending the extensive rehabilitation required for them is lacking in the carceral system.

Proving that sex offenders have been truly rehabilitated and no longer pose a threat to society would require a “monumental feat” given their high recidivism rates, said Henry, who has been fighting to block Klemp’s release.

“For extremely violent people who prey on children, we have to do everything we possibly can to make sure they don’t victimize when they are released,” she said. “They are a very different category. There’s no way that we should consider releasing them.”

However, Henry does believe the Elderly Parole Program can work for certain offenders who are committed to their rehabilitation.

“I do think it works for those who truly engage in their programming and not just go through the motions, and are able to demonstrate clearly why they are no longer a threat,” Henry said.

Blonien, the parole board chief counsel, said that while prisoners with a history of sexual offenses are at a much higher risk to reoffend, less than 1% categorized as high-risk offenders are granted parole. She said the parole board goes to great lengths to determine whether an offender poses low, moderate or high risk for reoffending before deciding whether to release them back into society.

Victims, prosecutors speak out

Victims, their families and prosecutors also have demanded the law be changed to exclude violent sex offenders and murderers.

Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer ensures that a prosecutor from his office attends every parole hearing to fight against the early release of inmates.

“Governor Gavin Newsom and the California Legislature should not be able to wave a magic wand and declare that some of our state’s most horrific murderers, rapists and child molesters should be let out the front door of California’s prisons after often spending just a fraction of the sentence handed down by a Superior Court judge,” Spitzer said.

“I refuse to accept a reality in which the heinousness of the crime no longer matters, and the victims no longer matter.”

San Diego County District Attorney Summer Stephan called Lewis a “cold-hearted killer,” and said her office wrote to Gov. Newsom discouraging his release, saying he lacked remorse for his crimes. Nonetheless, the parole board granted Lewis’ release.

Stephan said she is working with crime victims to assemble a survivor group to explain the impact the elderly parole law has on crime victims. “Victims also have constitutional rights, not just the accused,” she said.

The Los Angeles County District District Attorney’s Office declined to comment for this story and deferred comment to the CDCR.

Claira Stansbury, the sister of Mix’s victim, said, “I just don’t understand why the victims of these crimes, like my sister, have to continue to live through this over and over just because of our justice system. We can’t bet on the lives of children.”

Klemp’s victim said, for her, panic set in when she first learned he was eligible for early release last year.

“I was having multiple panic attacks. I couldn’t sleep. I was having nightmares like he was coming to get me,” she said. “I could hear his voice. I was waking up screaming, feeling like he was sexually abusing me again. It was horrible.”

Shaffer said she understands the fear factor victims have at the thought of their assailants being released back into society. But she also believes most of those released are likely to never reoffend and will rebuild their lives.

“What I know to be true is that some people have the ability to transform themselves. They have the ability to change and to be safely released to our communities, and these laws allow that opportunity,” she said. “But the laws do not dictate if the person actually gets released or not. The decision to do so is based on very solid, evidence-based decision-making by the (parole) board. And our track record shows it.”