(The Center Square) – A California Democrat revived his bill to propose early release of prisoners serving life sentences without the chance of parole, a sentence typically awarded only to those who commit the most violent or reprehensible of crimes.
The only exclusions barring early release under this bill would be for those who have committed first degree murder of a police officer, or three or more people, or if the crime driving the life without parole sentence involved a sexual act, such as a rape-homicide; those sentenced for only two murders — so long as one of the two was not of a police officer, and neither involved sexual acts during the murders — could appeal for early release.
SB 94 from State Sen. David Cortese would allow individuals sentenced before June 5, 1990, when California voters passed Proposition 115, who have served 25 years or more to petition for early release. Reasons for petitioning early release include “childhood trauma,” being a veteran, having a cognitive impairment, intellectual disability, or mental illness, having been under 26 at the time of the offense, being in “diminished physical condition” that “reduces risk for future violence,” or if the California Racial Justice Act applies.
The California Racial Justice Act allows individuals to challenge lawful convictions if they can present present racial bias related to trials, or in the absence of bias, county-level data finding members of an individual’s race or national origin face more arrests, serious charges or longer sentences than another group; it’s unclear what the baseline comparison group might be, as white individuals commit more crime per capita than Asian individuals, while Asians from some nations commit more crime than Asians from other nations on the large, diverse Asian continent, thereby allowing anyone to present a disparity of some kind.
Prop. 115 required that California not provide criminals with greater protections than allowed by the United States Constitution, expanded the definition of first-degree murder to include murders committed during the attempt of other serious crimes, and created the ability to sentence individuals to life sentences without the possibility of parole for extremely heinous torture of another person, thereby expanding the number of individuals eligible for life sentences.
“The majority of people serving a life without parole sentence are classified as low risk according to California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)’s own California Static Risk Assessment tool,” wrote Cortese in support of the bill. “This bill simply creates a process for the judicial review of cases that have not been looked at in decades.”
The San Diego Deputy District Attorneys Association, which opposes the bill, asked lawmakers to consider the potential risk to public safety.
“By enacting Proposition 115, the voters of this state have told us they want to keep the worst of the worst in prison where they belong,” wrote SDDDAA in opposition. “By creating presumptions favoring the release of these murderers, SB 94 will create unjustifiable risks to public safety.”
California Republicans came out in opposition to the bill, with State Sen. Minority Leader Brian Jones, R-San Diego, writing, “SB 94 could literally let hundreds of the most heinous murderers out of prison early, even if they were sentenced to life without parole. This harsh punishment is reserved for the worst of the worst criminals.”
Assemblymember Ash Kalra — author of the Racial Justice Act — filed notice to move the bill off the State Assembly’s “inactive” file on August 12.
Cortese told KCRA he is making changes to the bill that should allow the bill to pass and make it to the governor’s desk. Pending the amendments, it’s unclear when the bill would be voted on.
