A murder victim’s mother has no place as chair of the Alaska Parole Board
Edith Grunwald is the wrong person to sit as chair of the Alaska Parole Board.
Grunwald’s leadership of the board is an obvious and glaring mistake, but she’s not to blame for this ongoing miscarriage of justice. Instead, the fault of her absurd appointment lies with Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy, for whom unabashed cronyism is becoming as signature as fleece jackets and empty PFD promises.
Grunwald’s path to the head of the parole board began in 2016, when her 16-year-old son David was murdered by a group of teenagers in the Mat-Su Valley. A 31-year veteran of the Air Force and Air National Guard, Grunwald quickly became the voice her son no longer had, attending every court hearing, speaking at length with the media and harnessing her grief to become a leading advocate for victims’ rights in Alaska.
She later ran for lieutenant governor, finishing a close second to Kevin Meyer with a tough-on-crime campaign that focused on a controversial Alaska criminal justice reform law she derided as “catch-and-release” and “criminal-friendly.”
Her story is as inspirational as it is heartbreaking, and the fact Grunwald turned her immeasurable grief into something positive is an unquestioned triumph. She deserves both sympathy and praise for her efforts and should continue to be a powerful voice for the perspective of victims of violent crime.
But none of that qualifies her to sit in judgment of Alaska inmates seeking parole. In fact, quite the opposite. Grunwald’s biography on the state Department of Corrections website hints that the experiences surrounding her son’s murder is her primary qualification for serving on the board — but doesn’t mention the matter specifically in the biography posted to the state parole board website.
“She entered the criminal justice arena in December 2016 and has been involved with Alaska’s judicial laws and continuing education in Corrections courses,” reads Grunwald’s biography.
Why not be more specific? Because both Grunwald and the Department of Corrections know how biased a more detailed description of her qualifications would appear.
When she was appointed to a five-year term in 2019, Grunwald told the Anchorage Daily News she would be an impartial arbiter during parole hearings and argued her feelings wouldn’t interfere with her decisions on the board.
“I’m loyal to my oath. I’m not going to make bad decisions because I’ve got personal biases,” she said.
Grunwald’s victim impact statement from the sentencing hearing of one of her son’s killers, Austin Barrett, tells a different story:
“(H)is murderers continue to have birthdays, life, friends, contact with family, cable TV, options and choices. David will never get a 2nd chance — ever. Which leads me to saying that these particular murderers should not have a second chance,” she wrote.
Grunwald made it clear that in the case of her son’s killers — who were all teenagers at the time of the killing — the convicted should never again breathe free air.
“I do not support any type of early release whether it be discretionary parole, furlough, EM — and it is my preference that the community be kept safe from such deranged and heinous crimes.”
There’s nothing wrong with that at all. Any one of us would feel the same way, and Grunwald’s grief and anger will forever be justified. None of us can question the depth of her pain or the enormity of her loss; hers is a wound that can never be healed and her brave efforts on behalf of her son and others who have suffered a similar fate are laudable.
But it’s precisely why she should not sit on the parole board. Frankly, the fact Grunwald doesn’t see why her personal feelings will forever color her judgment toward those seeking parole is a huge red flag and does not speak highly of her judgment nor her self awareness.
Grunwald’s statements also seem to contradict the U.S. Constitution. In a 2012 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled mandatory life sentences for juvenile offenders unconstitutional, but Grunwald seems to believe her son’s killers should never be released.
(UPDATE: Two days after this column was published, the Supreme Court ruled life sentences without parole for juvenile offenders constitutional in a 6–3 decision)
Victims’ rights advocates should be an integral part of the parole process, but they should not be the loudest nor the most important voice in the conversation. Someone whose life experiences are so tainted by violent crime and whose opinions toward those sentenced for violent offences so entrenched has no business as chair of a board whose sole job is to weigh parole applications.
The constitution doesn’t just protect crime victims, it protects the rights of the accused as well as their families. While Grunwald is clearly a champion of victims’ rights, what about the rights of those whose loved ones are currently incarcerated? Don’t they have a right to a fair and equitable process as well?
Like Grunwald, I have personal experience with the criminal justice system. When I was in my 20s, I drove drunk and crashed my car, injuring my passenger. I spent two months in prison and eventually served the remainder of my sentence on probation. It’s the biggest mistake I’ve ever made and one for which I can never fully atone.
I have intimate knowledge of the state’s criminal justice system, which I’ve studied from the inside and out both as an inmate and later as a newspaper reporter and editor. But in a million years you would never appoint me as head of the state parole board, because it should be obvious to all that the judgment of a former inmate — no matter how fair-minded and educated — would always be colored by his experiences behind bars. An appointment like mine would be a slap in the face of victims rights advocates like Grunwald and wholly inappropriate.
Likewise, the appointment of a woman whose life has been forever altered by her experience as the victim of violent crime should never have happened in the first place; it’s unfair to those who come before the board in search of a new life and a second chance and should be rectified immediately.
Incarcerated individuals seeking parole deserve a fair and unbiased hearing; due to her experiences, Edith Grunwald is fundamentally incapable of providing that fairness. She should be replaced by someone who has both knowledge of the criminal justice system and rehabilitation and someone who won’t bring an existing bias against convicted criminals to the board.
During his tenure, Governor Dunleavy has made a string of odd, politically motivated appointments that have resulted in a loss of confidence in his ability to make sound decisions. He’s had two attorney generals resign due to sex scandals, had a commissioner step down due to resume padding and been forced to remove a member of the Human Rights Commission due to the woman’s tacit support of Nazi imagery. There’s other examples, but you get the point.
Grunwald’s appointment as head of the parole board was a way for Dunleavy to play to his base in the Mat-Su Valley, for whom the Grunwald case remains a hot button item and where the only solution to crime is more bars, bigger jails or hot lead.
As Alaska attempts to reform its problem-plagued criminal justice system, Edie Grunwald’s voice should and will be a valuable and vital part of the conversation. But to give her such a powerful position as head of the state parole board is an ongoing injustice. Grunwald herself should recognize this mistake, step down from the board and find a more appropriate role in solving the state’s criminal justice issues.
Matthew Tunseth is a freelance writer and photographer from Anchorage, Alaska. Write to him at matthew.tunseth@gmail.com.
