The regulations articulate circumstances tending to show suitability for parole: "(1) the absence of a juvenile record; (2) 'reasonably stable relationships with others'; (3) signs of remorse; (4) a crime committed 'as the result of significant stress in the prisoner's life'; (5) battered woman syndrome; (6) the lack of 'any significant history of violent crime'; (7) 'the prisoner's present age reducing the probability of recidivism'; (8) 'the prisoner's having made realistic plans for release or having developed marketable skills that can be put to use upon release'; (9) the inmate's 'institutional activities indicating an enhanced ability to function within the law upon release.'" (quoting Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, 2281, subd. (d)(1)-(9).) The companion cases of In re Lawrence (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1181(Lawrence) and In re Shaputis (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1241 (Shaputis) clarified the law of parole suitability as originally outlined by In re Rosenkrantz (2002) 29 Cal.4th 616 (Rosenkrantz). (Lawrence, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1205.) "'The governing statute provides that the Board must grant parole unless it determines that public safety requires a lengthier period of incarceration for the individual because of the gravity of the offense underlying the conviction. ( 3041, subd. (b).) And as set forth in the governing regulations, the Board must set a parole date for a prisoner unless it finds, in the exercise of its judgment after considering the circumstances enumerated in section 2402 of the regulations, that the prisoner is unsuitable for parole. The governing statute and regulations for parole suitability decisions for a prisoner who, like Morales, is serving a sentence for a murder committed on or after November 8, 1978, are, respectively, section 3041 and California Code of Regulations, title 15, sections 2280 et seq. and 2400 et seq. (Cf. Lawrence, supra, 44 Cal.4th at pp. 1201-1202 & fn. 5.) Accordingly, parole applicants in this state have an expectation that they will be granted parole unless the Board finds, in the exercise of its discretion, that they are unsuitable for parole in light of the circumstances specified by statute and by regulation.' (Rosenkrantz, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 654. See also In re Smith (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 343, 366 'parole is the rule, rather than the exception'.)" (Lawrence, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1204.) Prisoners have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in the parole suitability decisions of the Board. (Id. at pp. 1211-1212; citing Rosenkrantz, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 664.) "Pursuant to statute, the Board 'shall normally set a parole release date' one year prior to the inmate's minimum eligible parole release date, and shall set the date in a manner that will provide uniform terms for offenses of similar gravity and magnitude in respect to their threat to the public....' ( 3041, subd. (a).) Subdivision (b) of section 3041 provides that a release date must be set 'unless the Board determines that the gravity of the current convicted offense or offenses, or the timing and gravity of current or past convicted offense or offenses, is such that consideration of the public safety requires a more lengthy period of incarceration for this individual, and that a parole date, therefore, cannot be fixed at this meeting.' (see Rosenkrantz, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 654.)" (Lawrence, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1202.) The "core determination of 'public safety' under the statute and corresponding regulations involves an assessment of an inmate's current dangerousness." (Id. at p. 1205.) "All relevant, reliable information available to the panel shall be considered in determining suitability for parole." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, 2281, subd. (b).) "Such information shall include the circumstances of the prisoner's: social history; past and present mental state; past criminal history, including involvement in other criminal misconduct which is reliably documented; the base and other commitment offenses, including behavior before, during and after the crime; past and present attitude toward the crime; any conditions of treatment or control, including the use of special conditions under which the prisoner may safely be released to the community; and any other information which bears on the prisoner's suitability for release. Circumstances which taken alone may not firmly establish unsuitability for parole may contribute to a pattern which results in a finding of unsuitability." (Ibid.) The "fundamental consideration in parole decisions is public safety." (Lawrence, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1205.) The regulations articulate circumstances tending to show unsuitability for parole: "(1) a commitment offense carried out in an 'especially heinous, atrocious or cruel manner'; (2) a 'previous record of violence'; (3) 'a history of unstable or tumultuous relationships with others'; (4) 'sadistic sexual offenses'; (5) 'a lengthy history of severe mental problems related to the offense'; and (6) 'the prisoner's engagement in serious misconduct in prison or jail.'" (Lawrence, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1203, fn. 7, quoting Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, 2281, subd. (c)(1)-(6).) Those circumstances are "general guidelines; the importance attached to any circumstance or combination of circumstances in a particular case is left to the judgment of the panel." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, 2281, subd. (c).) As to whether the commitment offense was carried out in an "especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel manner" (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, 2281, subd. (c)(1)), the regulations articulate factors for consideration by the Board: "(A) multiple victims were attacked, injured, or killed in the same or separate incidents; (B) the offense was carried out in a dispassionate and calculated manner, such as an execution-style murder; (C) the victim was abused, defiled, or mutilated during or after the offense; (D) the offense was carried out in a manner that demonstrates an exceptionally callous disregard for human suffering; and (E) the motive for the crime is inexplicable or very trivial in relation to the offense." (Lawrence, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1203, fn. 7, quoting Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, 2281, subd. (c)(1)(A)-(c)(1)(E).) Like circumstances tending to show unsuitability for parole, circumstances tending to show suitability for parole are "general guidelines; the importance attached to any circumstance or combination of circumstances in a particular case is left to the judgment of the panel." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, 2281, subd. (d).) In short, since "a parole release decision authorizes the Board ... to identify and weigh only the factors relevant to predicting 'whether the inmate will be able to live in society without committing additional antisocial acts,'" the criteria that the governing regulations identify for consideration by the Board "are designed to guide an assessment of the inmate's threat to society, if released, and hence could not logically relate to anything but the threat currently posed by the inmate." (Lawrence, supra, 44 Cal.4th at pp. 1205-1206, quoting Rosenkrantz, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 655 and citing Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, 2281, subds. (c) & (d).)