The assassination of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy occurred more than 50 years ago, but the great loss of a political figure who galvanized America’s youth continues to loom over the political landscape as if it were yesterday.
Late on the night of June 5, 1968, at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, following his victory speech after winning the California Democratic Primary, Kennedy left the Embassy Ballroom, en route to a press conference in an adjoining room. On his way to the media event, he took a shortcut through a crowded kitchen pantry, where a young Palestinian immigrant named Sirhan B. Sirhan, angry over Kennedy’s support of Israel, drew a pistol and fired. In all, five people were hit by bullets from the Iver-Johnson .22 caliber revolver, including Kennedy, who lay mortally wounded on the pantry floor. He was pronounced dead at 1:44 a.m. the following morning.
Last summer, on Aug. 27, the California Board of Parole Hearings, met to discuss Sirhan’s suitability for parole. This was the sixteenth time that Sirhan had applied for parole; and, on 15 prior occasions, the Board found him unsuitable. I was present at the most recent hearing, conducted virtually via a video-conferencing platform, and was somewhat surprised that, after over four hours of discussion, the Board found him to be a suitable candidate for parole. Based on the panel’s thoughtful decision, I was hopeful, that the Board and the Governor of California, Gavin Newsom, would concur with the panel’s recommendation. Newsom, however, chose to overturn the board’s decision and deny parole for Sirhan.
For a couple of weeks prior to the hearing and in the weeks that followed, various members of the Kennedy family, including, Ethel Kennedy — Sen. Kennedy’s widow — as well as several of their children began to publicly urge Newsom not to sanction Sirhan’s release. I certainly understand their position. If it were a member of my family, I would have urged the state to keep the assassin locked up for the rest of his life. But that is precisely why, under the American legal system, the question guilt or innocence is determined by a neutral jury of peers and the sentence usually imposed by a judge rather than those friends and family members impacted by a crime.
Newsom published an op-ed column in the Los Angeles Times setting forth his reasons for the denial. I respectfully disagree with that decision.
In the first paragraph of his column, Newsom states that “[d]ecades later, Sirhan refuses to accept responsibility for the crimes.” That statement is untrue. At prior hearings, Sirhan repeatedly stated that he had no memory of the event but did acknowledge some level of responsibility. At this most recent hearing, Sirhan accepted responsibility for his actions and stated that he “take[s] responsibility for firing the shots.” At the hearing, Douglas Kennedy, one of Robert and Ethel Kennedy’s 11 children, spoke in support of Sirhan’s release, stating that he was moved by Sirhan’s expression of remorse and acceptance of responsibility.
Newsom further states that “I have determined that Sirhan has not developed the accountability and insight required to support his safe release into the community, I must reverse Sirhan’s parole grant.” Again, I respectfully disagree. For at least the past 40 years, Sirhan has been a model prisoner who continues to work his prison job, attend counseling sessions and Alcohol Anonymous meetings and participate in anger management courses. He has even completed an associates’ degree program while incarcerated.
Newsom also explains that “Sirhan still lacks the insight that would prevent him from making the kind of dangerous and destructive decisions he made in the past,” and that because of these factors, Sirhan is still a danger to the community. That assertion, too, does not ring true.
Psychologists at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation have concluded that Sirhan is at low risk of reoffending, and as such is not a danger to the public. Three current corrections officers at Sirhan’s correctional facility wrote letters in support of his grant of parole, and, for the first time, representatives of the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office did not attend the hearing to oppose the grant of parole. In addition, under recent changes in California law, the Board is required to give additional weight to the fact that at 23, Sirhan was a youthful offender when the crime was committed — and now, at the age of 77, he is an elderly prisoner.
Finally, Newsom asserts that “[i]n the past, terrorists took hostages — and ultimately killed some of them in Sirhan’s name.” My first reaction to that statement is: should Sirhan be held responsible for the actions of and justifications for violence committed by others? I think the answer to that question should be a resounding “no.”
In the final analysis, we have a man who is now almost 80 years old, and who has been in jail for 54 years (almost two-thirds of his life), is suffering from severe medical conditions (including cardiac problems) and who was assaulted in 2019 when another prisoner slashed his throat. At his hearing, Sirhan stated that his hope was to return to his family’s home, care for his brother who is now blind and incapacitated and live a quiet life for his remaining years.
The question that we must ask is this: did Newsom make an independent, fair-minded decision, or did he bow to political pressure? I will leave you, the reader, to draw your own conclusions.
Paul L. DeBole, an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Lasell University, is the author of “Conspiracy 101: An Authoritative Examination Of The Greatest Conspiracies In American Politics,” forthcoming from Beaufort Books.
