California Releases Olson To Parole

In January 2002, Sara Jane Olson (born Kathleen Soliah) pled guilty to two counts of attempting to ignite a destructive device or explosive. A year later she pled guilty to second-degree murder. She received a sentence of twenty years to life. The crimes sprang from the time she spent as a member of the Symbionese Liberation Army in the 1970's -- a home-grown terrorist group.

After being indicted in 1976, the Justice Department said "she evaded capture for 23 years, and in the meantime, became a doctor's wife, mother of three, community volunteer, veteran of charity work in Africa and practicing Methodist living in an upscale neighborhood in St. Paul." She was caught in 2001.

I can understand the victims and police being upset at Olson's release after only seven years. In many other states (including Texas), she would have to serve many more years before even being eligible for parole. But she was convicted in California, and they do things a little differently there. Because of good time and her work inside the prison, the California Parole Board reduced her sentence to only seven years plus one year on parole.

But one thing I don't understand is the hullabaloo over what state she does her parole in -- California or Minnesota. Police unions in both states want her to have to do her parole in California. This makes no real sense. With the overcrowding in California, she'll probably be supervised more closely in Minnesota. I hope this is not just a desire to punish her further by keeping her away from her friends and family.

Minnesota's governor Tim Pawlenty has also jumped into the fray and asked California not to send Olson back. This one's easy to understand. Just another Republican politician trying to make political hay out of a situation he thinks might upset the public. He should really stay out of it.

The real fact is that there's not a lot either parole department could do about the transfer. Olson has a right to be treated like any other parolee. There are currently thousands of parolees serving their parole in a different state than the one their crime was committed in. The receiving state must have a valid reason to deny the transfer and I don't see one here.

Olson has a twenty-year history in Minnesota. That's where her family and friends are, while she has no support system in California. If it was any other parolee, the transfer would be almost automatic since a parolee does much better where he has a support system (family and friends willing to help). Olson cannot and should not be treated differently.

If you think she should have served more time, I agree with you. But if she's being released to parole, it makes sense she do that parole in Minnesota.