» News
San Fran Leading the Charge on Getting Soft on Crime
…life sentences are coming under increased attack from activists, lawmakers and even the U.S. Supreme Court, which recently struck down mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles as unconstitutional “cruel and unusual” punishment. On Thursday, the California Assembly passed a bill by the slimmest of margins that would give juvenile lifers in that state a shot at freedom.
“Because their brain is still developing, they have the ability to rehabilitate,” said Michael Harris, a senior attorney at the National Center for Youth Law. “They are more likely to rehabilitate than an adult.”
Despite the legal rulings and the legislative activity, some survivors of people killed by juveniles are pushing back and arguing that a life sentence is appropriate punishment for juveniles who commit heinous murders.
“They say they deserve a second chance, but the victims don’t get a second chance,” said Maggie Elvey, whose husband was murdered in 1993 by two teens during the robbery of his gun shop in Vista, Calif.
She called Thursday a “sad day” because of the California Assembly’s passage of a bill introduced by state Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco. The bill allows lifers to seek a sentence of 25-years-to-life with a chance for parole after serving 15 years. It passed the state Senate last year but failed repeatedly in the Assembly before Democrat lawmakers approved it by a single vote after a heated debate. The bill moves back to the state Senate for final approval. Passage is expected.
Criminal defense lawyer Daniel Horowitz, whose wife was murdered in 2005 by a 16 year old now serving life without parole, largely sides with Elvey.
Releasing most of the thousands of juvenile lifers “would open the gates of hell,” Horowitz said.
“We aren’t trying to punish these young people,” he said. “We are trying to protect the public from this happening again.”
Here is the case that started the ball rolling. Yes, her case can be an exception, but should it dictate the rule? Why would everyone be released because of what was deemed a too harsh sentence for one young girl?
Stranded in Sonoma
August 18th, 2012
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
– Marcus Tullius Cicero
Death_By_Farts
August 18th, 2012
“Because their brains are still developing”…..
The juvi thugs? Or the Idiots who voted for this shit?
Friend of the family
August 18th, 2012
Once the gang bangers, career criminal “youth,” and other INNOCENT AND TENDER young thieves and murdering type hear this, they’ll go on a crime spree. Hell, anyone can handle fifteen years–let’s take our chances they’ll boast!
Death_By_Farts
August 18th, 2012
As Ralphie would say….”well sure….”
Ralphie wants to spend the night!
Ralphie wants to go fishin!
Ralphie wants a little purse with some money in it!
Ralphie wants a couple o’ charlie horses!
Tim
August 18th, 2012
Why don’t the humans just leave CA and let the rest of em eat each other?
Lowell
August 18th, 2012
I don’t believe in mandatory sentencing for anything. Weigh the crime, evaluate the guilty. Levy reasoned and thoughtful judgement to punish.
I’ve also never believed in “rehabilitation”, that shouldn’t be the role of the state.
Maudie N Mandeville
August 18th, 2012
Personally, I’m OK with a young fatherless child murdering her pimp and being incarcerated for life. It’s the other side of the precious liberal’s welfare state.
BTW, before you ‘Cry for me, Argentina’, “California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger granted clemency on January 2, 2011, to Sara Kruzan, a woman who, at the age of 16, shot dead George Gilbert Howard, her alleged pimp. Schwarzenegger commuted Kruzan’s life sentence without the possibility of parole to life to 25 years to life in prison with the possibility of parole, saying that her life sentence was “excessive.”
General P. Malaise
August 18th, 2012
“…………..life without parole sentences for juveniles as unconstitutional “cruel and unusual” punishment.”
these same people disavow the constitution every time they disagree with it. like in the case of the secons ammendmant and the first when it concerns conservative speech.
bunch of pr!cks
michellesbigbeaver
August 18th, 2012
These c*cksuckers in California are ruining the whole country. Do you think that these murderers are going to stay in CA? No, many of them will disperse across the country carrying their contagion with them.
Trogloraptor
August 18th, 2012
Anyone remember the male/female/whatever police chief of SF a while back?
Those crazy queerbaits are just asking for trouble.
scr_north
August 18th, 2012
We in Canada had something called the “Faint Hope Clause” where a prisoner sentenced to life (ha, 25 years actually) could apply for parole at the 15 year point (assuming the parole point set by the judge was greater than 15 years). It was repealed in December, 2011. Now if someone is sentenced to life with eligibility for parole after 25 years they’ll serve at least 25 years.