Source: davisvanguard.org 9/26/26
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Sacramento County Sheriff Jim Cooper sharply criticized California’s parole system this week after his office recently learned that a man convicted of a series of violent sexual offenses more than two decades ago is living in Sacramento County, questioning how someone sentenced to three life terms plus 51 years could be out of prison.
But records from the California Board of Parole Hearings provide important context to Cooper’s criticism: Lloyd Clinton Edwards did not simply have his sentence reduced to 26 years. He became eligible for parole consideration, underwent a formal parole suitability hearing, was found suitable for release and then had that decision affirmed by the full Board of Parole Hearings following gubernatorial review.
Perhaps most significantly, Edwards was released in April 2022 and, according to the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office itself, has remained compliant with parole and has had no reported negative law enforcement contacts since his release more than four years ago.
The Sheriff’s Office said it only recently learned that Edwards was living in Sacramento County, apparently prompting Cooper’s criticism years after Edwards was released.
There is no indication in the Sheriff’s Office account that a new arrest, parole violation or other adverse law enforcement contact triggered the scrutiny. Instead, Cooper’s concern centers on the fact that Edwards was released at all and is now living in Sacramento County.
“Why the hell is he out? Why is he in my county?” Cooper told FOX40.
Edwards, now 47, was convicted in Butte County in …
If he’s been fully compliant for four years, then that means his registration is current and yet, this law enforcement agency claims they only recently learned of his residency now?
Exactly what purpose do these registration schemes serve? lol
This article could mean the sheriff (who is elected by the people of the county he is lording over) possibly just found out about it (long after he established residency there because he has been within the lines established for him to be within as surmised by the article) either because no one briefed the him this was happening (or going to happen back when) or someone was perusing CA’s Megan’s website and started asking questions to which he could then feign shock and surprise at the situation to make it more than it really is as he already knew. (Yes, I know that is a rather long run on sentence tying much together.)
OR
Because he is running for re-election in ’26, he needs to strengthen his platform going into election day and chose to make this a topic for picking a fight to show he is the alleged better man than the system is since this is the norm today (or because the prevailing thought today is to pick a fight with the system for political grandstanding for possible later higher office aspirations).
Either way, this seems to be a premeditated political move by a hack trying to make something outta nothing.
Come on, Sheriff Cooper
It’s a little too late to be clutching your pearls now
This is exactly where the conversation about parole needs to be challenged. The question shouldn’t simply be, “How can someone with an old conviction possibly be out?” The question should be: What purpose is continued punishment actually serving after someone has spent decades in the system and has demonstrated that they can live in the community without new problems?
If this man has been out for four years with no reported problems, then automatically treating his original sentence as proof that he can never safely reenter society ignores the entire concept of rehabilitation. A justice system that refuses to recognize rehabilitation eventually stops being about public safety and starts becoming about permanent punishment.
And California’s system creates enormous financial and bureaucratic incentives around keeping people entangled in supervision, registration, fees, reporting requirements, and other restrictions. That doesn’t prove that every official is motivated by money, but it is completely legitimate to question whether a system that continuously extracts money and resources from people long after their sentences are over has become institutionally invested in keeping people under its control.
At some point, you have to ask whether the state is protecting the public—or simply maintaining a system where people can never truly finish paying their debt to society.
Justice cannot mean “you are guilty forever.” If someone has served their sentence, complied with the law, demonstrated years of stability, and poses no documented current threat, there should at least be a serious conversation about what continued punishment is accomplishing. Otherwise, “rehabilitation” becomes nothing more than a word politicians and law-enforcement agencies use when convenient.
Just another A**hole Psycho cop!!!
I thought the registry was a useful tool, so why was the sheriff unaware this guy was registered in his county for the last four years? Sounds like the sheriff is not too bright there in Sacramento.
The Sheriff formed a “negative emotion”, grew angry and now feels compelled to give expression to it. My 8 year old grandson has been doing the same thing a good portion of his life. Perhaps he should begin exercising some modicum of self-control as he gets older.
“My county”
That’s right up there with “not on my watch.”
These clowns are so predictable.