Bill Introduced to Reform Life Sentences for Minors
California Political Desk
February 26, 2009
SACRAMENTO – Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco/San Mateo) today continued his efforts to decrease the number of youth offenders sentenced to life without the possibility parole, which is currently the maximum sentence allowed by law. Last session, Yee introduced SB 999 in an attempt to abolish the sentence and institute 25 years to life as the maximum sentence for juveniles.
Today, Yee introduced SB 399, which would not eliminate the sentence of life without parole for juveniles but instead would provide a review of a youth offender´s sentence after 10 years. SB 399 also establishes specific criteria to be used by the Board of Parole Hearings for determining if a juvenile sentenced to life without parole should be considered for resentencing.
"Children have a greater capacity for rehabilitation than adults," said Yee, who is also a child psychologist. "The neuroscience is clear; brain maturation continues well through adolescence and thus impulse control, planning, and critical thinking skills are still not yet fully developed. SB 399 reflects that science and provides the opportunity for compassion and rehabilitation that we should exercise with minors."
The US Supreme Court, in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), confirmed that minors need to be considered differently than adults in sentencing The ruling prohibited the death penalty for children due to concerns about brain development.
While there are more than 250 youth under the age of 18 years old when they committed crimes and were sentenced to life without parole in California, there is not a single juvenile sentenced to life without parole outside of the U.S. Prohibited by international law and norms, no other country in the world imposes this sentence on youth.
A recent report published by Human Rights Watch found that in many cases where juveniles were prosecuted with an adult for the same offense, the youth received heavier sentences than their adult codefendants.
"Sentencing children to life without parole means they will die in prison," said Elizabeth Calvin, children´s rights advocate at Human Rights Watch. "The public can be kept safe without locking children up forever for crimes committed when they were still considered too young to have the judgment to vote, drink, or even drive."
Despite popular belief to the contrary, Human Rights Watch found that life without parole is not reserved for children who commit the worst crimes or who show signs of being irredeemable criminals. Nationally, it is estimated that 59% of youth sentenced to life without parole had no prior criminal convictions. Forty-five percent of California youth sentenced to life without parole for involvement in a murder did not actually kill the victim. Many were convicted of felony murder, or for aiding and abetting the murder, because they acted as lookouts or were participating in another felony, such as a robbery, when the murder took place.
Of the approximately 250 youth in California serving this sentence, there are a high number of cases that have brought into question this severe sentencing. One such case involves Sara Kruzan, who was raised in Riverside by her mother who was abusive and addicted to drugs. Sarah was very vulnerable, and at age 11, a man began grooming her to become a prostitute. Soon after meeting her, he sexually assaulted her, and at 13 years old she began working as a prostitute for him. At age 16 she killed him, and for this crime was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, despite the California Youth Authority and a psychiatric evaluation determining that she was amendable to rehabilitation.
"Life without parole means absolutely no opportunity for release," said Yee. "It also means minors are often left without access to programs and rehabilitative services while in prison. This sentence was created for the worst of criminals that have no possibility of reform and it is not a humane way to handle children. While the crimes they committed caused undeniable suffering, these youth offenders are not the worst of the worst."
"As a society we´ve learned a lot since the time we started using life without parole for children," said Calvin. "We know now that this sentence provides no deterrent effect. While children who commit serious crimes should be held accountable, public safety can be protected without subjecting youth to the harshest prison sentence possible. This bill would punish youth but give them the opportunity to prove they have turned their lives around."
Nationally, eleven jurisdictions have prohibited this sentence including New York, Colorado, and the District of Columbia. Other states are considering reforms or have efforts underway to eliminate the sentence, including Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, and Washington. The oldest human rights treaty to which the US is a party, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, prohibits this sentence.
California also has the worst record in the nation for racial disparity in the imposition of life without parole for juveniles. African American youth are serving the sentence at a rate that is 18 times higher than the rate for white youth, and the rate for Hispanic youth is five times higher.
Since 1990, California has spent between $66 million and $83 million on incarcerating youth offenders sentenced to life without parole. To continue incarcerating the current population of youth offenders already sentenced to life without parole until their deaths in prison will cost the state approximately $500 million. Each new youth offender given this sentence will cost the state upwards of $2.5 million.
"As a society, can we really decide that a sixteen year old is absolutely unredeemable," said Javier Stauring, Co-Director of the Office of Restorative Justice for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. "That´s what a life without parole sentence does—there is no chance for redemption, no real opportunity for rehabilitation."
Under SB 399, the parole board would consider the following in determining if a youth offender sentenced to life without parole would receive a hearing for possible resentencing:
the defendant did not commit a felony with significant potential for personal harm prior to the current conviction;
the defendant committed the offense with at least one adult codefendant;
prior to the offense, the defendant had insufficient adult support or supervision and had suffered from psychological or physical trauma;
the defendant suffers from cognitive limitations due to mental illness, developmental disabilities, or other factors that did not constitute a defense, but influenced the defendant´s involvement in the crime;
the defendant has performed acts that indicate rehabilitation or potential for rehabilitation;
the defendant has maintained family ties or has eliminated contact with individuals outside of prison who are currently involved with crime;
the defendant has had no violent disciplinary violations in the last five years.
Today, Yee introduced SB 399, which would not eliminate the sentence of life without parole for juveniles but instead would provide a review of a youth offender´s sentence after 10 years. SB 399 also establishes specific criteria to be used by the Board of Parole Hearings for determining if a juvenile sentenced to life without parole should be considered for resentencing.
"Children have a greater capacity for rehabilitation than adults," said Yee, who is also a child psychologist. "The neuroscience is clear; brain maturation continues well through adolescence and thus impulse control, planning, and critical thinking skills are still not yet fully developed. SB 399 reflects that science and provides the opportunity for compassion and rehabilitation that we should exercise with minors."
The US Supreme Court, in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), confirmed that minors need to be considered differently than adults in sentencing The ruling prohibited the death penalty for children due to concerns about brain development.
While there are more than 250 youth under the age of 18 years old when they committed crimes and were sentenced to life without parole in California, there is not a single juvenile sentenced to life without parole outside of the U.S. Prohibited by international law and norms, no other country in the world imposes this sentence on youth.
A recent report published by Human Rights Watch found that in many cases where juveniles were prosecuted with an adult for the same offense, the youth received heavier sentences than their adult codefendants.
"Sentencing children to life without parole means they will die in prison," said Elizabeth Calvin, children´s rights advocate at Human Rights Watch. "The public can be kept safe without locking children up forever for crimes committed when they were still considered too young to have the judgment to vote, drink, or even drive."
Despite popular belief to the contrary, Human Rights Watch found that life without parole is not reserved for children who commit the worst crimes or who show signs of being irredeemable criminals. Nationally, it is estimated that 59% of youth sentenced to life without parole had no prior criminal convictions. Forty-five percent of California youth sentenced to life without parole for involvement in a murder did not actually kill the victim. Many were convicted of felony murder, or for aiding and abetting the murder, because they acted as lookouts or were participating in another felony, such as a robbery, when the murder took place.
Of the approximately 250 youth in California serving this sentence, there are a high number of cases that have brought into question this severe sentencing. One such case involves Sara Kruzan, who was raised in Riverside by her mother who was abusive and addicted to drugs. Sarah was very vulnerable, and at age 11, a man began grooming her to become a prostitute. Soon after meeting her, he sexually assaulted her, and at 13 years old she began working as a prostitute for him. At age 16 she killed him, and for this crime was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, despite the California Youth Authority and a psychiatric evaluation determining that she was amendable to rehabilitation.
"Life without parole means absolutely no opportunity for release," said Yee. "It also means minors are often left without access to programs and rehabilitative services while in prison. This sentence was created for the worst of criminals that have no possibility of reform and it is not a humane way to handle children. While the crimes they committed caused undeniable suffering, these youth offenders are not the worst of the worst."
"As a society we´ve learned a lot since the time we started using life without parole for children," said Calvin. "We know now that this sentence provides no deterrent effect. While children who commit serious crimes should be held accountable, public safety can be protected without subjecting youth to the harshest prison sentence possible. This bill would punish youth but give them the opportunity to prove they have turned their lives around."
Nationally, eleven jurisdictions have prohibited this sentence including New York, Colorado, and the District of Columbia. Other states are considering reforms or have efforts underway to eliminate the sentence, including Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, and Washington. The oldest human rights treaty to which the US is a party, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, prohibits this sentence.
California also has the worst record in the nation for racial disparity in the imposition of life without parole for juveniles. African American youth are serving the sentence at a rate that is 18 times higher than the rate for white youth, and the rate for Hispanic youth is five times higher.
Since 1990, California has spent between $66 million and $83 million on incarcerating youth offenders sentenced to life without parole. To continue incarcerating the current population of youth offenders already sentenced to life without parole until their deaths in prison will cost the state approximately $500 million. Each new youth offender given this sentence will cost the state upwards of $2.5 million.
"As a society, can we really decide that a sixteen year old is absolutely unredeemable," said Javier Stauring, Co-Director of the Office of Restorative Justice for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. "That´s what a life without parole sentence does—there is no chance for redemption, no real opportunity for rehabilitation."
Under SB 399, the parole board would consider the following in determining if a youth offender sentenced to life without parole would receive a hearing for possible resentencing:
the defendant did not commit a felony with significant potential for personal harm prior to the current conviction;
the defendant committed the offense with at least one adult codefendant;
prior to the offense, the defendant had insufficient adult support or supervision and had suffered from psychological or physical trauma;
the defendant suffers from cognitive limitations due to mental illness, developmental disabilities, or other factors that did not constitute a defense, but influenced the defendant´s involvement in the crime;
the defendant has performed acts that indicate rehabilitation or potential for rehabilitation;
the defendant has maintained family ties or has eliminated contact with individuals outside of prison who are currently involved with crime;
the defendant has had no violent disciplinary violations in the last five years.