David Brom, convicted of one of the most infamous family murders in Minnesota history, has been quietly released from prison and transferred to a halfway house under a supervised work-release program — more than 36 years after the brutal 1988 killings that shocked the nation.
Brom was 16 years old when he used an axe to murder his parents and two younger siblings in their Rochester home. Convicted in 1989 and sentenced to three consecutive life terms, Brom was initially not expected to be eligible for parole until his early 70s.
That timeline changed with the passage of a 2023 Minnesota law signed by Gov. Tim Walz (D) that eliminated life sentences without the possibility of parole for juvenile offenders.
Under the new statute, juvenile lifers become eligible for supervised release review after serving 15 years. In Brom’s case, he had already served more than double that.
The New York Post continues:
Gov. Walz, the failed Democratic vice presidential contender, backed the law and approved it after it was passed by the Dem-controlled state House and Senate.
Lawmakers with the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party said that the law was changed to comply with a Supreme Court ruling that banned sentences of life without parole for juvenile offenders, according to KTTC-TV.
Brom served more than 35 years in prison after he was convicted of slashing his parents, Paulette and Bernard, sister Diane and brother Richard, to death in their Rochester home Feb. 18, 1988.
All four victims were discovered with multiple ax wounds to their heads and bodies.
A Brutal Crime, A Changed Legal Landscape
In February 1988, David Brom murdered his father Bernard, mother Paulette, 13-year-old sister Diane, and 11-year-old brother Richard — each killed with multiple blows from an axe. The eldest son, 18-year-old Joe, was not home at the time. Authorities later revealed that Brom had argued with his father the night before and left behind disturbing writings, including notebooks detailing his plan: pack clothes, kill his family, dye his hair, and flee. These writings, along with testimony that Brom had spoken about the murders to friends days beforehand, pointed to clear premeditation.
He was arrested after confessing to a friend, and the crime made national headlines. Jurors rejected an insanity defense, and he was sentenced to life in prison with parole eligibility after 52½ years — standard for juveniles tried as adults at the time.
But over the past decade, court rulings have reshaped how the justice system treats youth offenders. In Miller v. Alabama (2012), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that mandatory life without parole for juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment. Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016) made that ruling retroactive.
Minnesota’s 2023 law codified those principles. Despite objections from some prosecutors and lawmakers, the statute passed with support from the DFL-controlled legislature and Walz’s signature, making juvenile lifers eligible for supervised release hearings after 15 years served.
Supporters of the law point to scientific consensus that adolescent brains — particularly in areas controlling judgment and impulse — are not fully developed. They argue that offenders who committed crimes as minors should be given the opportunity to demonstrate growth and rehabilitation, especially after decades behind bars.
But critics argue the law overlooks the severity of the crimes and denies surviving families and communities a sense of closure. Opponents strongly contend that Brom’s actions weren’t mere lapses of youthful judgment — they were calculated, gruesome, and devastating.
READ NEXT: Trump Just Revived A Forgotten Economic Weapon — No Fed Needed
OK, Kids, this is why we have the death penalty. “Life sentences” even “without parole” are just words, if a leftist governor or government gets into office, or if the criminal’s health expenses get too expensive for the state to fund. Lots of lifers without parole are quietly released in their 70s or so because of medical expenses.
I’ve maintained for years (decades) that if a criminal gets some sort of ‘compassionate’ release IF the authority doing the release is unwilling to take that criminal into his/her own household there is no way that person should be released on the general public. And NO, I don’t care what platitudes the ‘let ’em go’ crowd comes up, they ain’t gonna change my mind nor the facts.
Remember the Lie-beral motto: NO RULES, JUST RIGHT !