California is the largest of all the states with a huge criminal justice system, yet there are actually relatively few teen killers sentenced to life in California – less than 300, according to estimates. Teens have, however, killed many people in California.
UPDATE FROM CALIFORNIA
September 6, 2013 Good news for victims families as the 9th Circuit rules in a habeus corpus appeal that the life sentence for the teen killer there has been a discretionary and therefore legal one. This will be helpful as Miller appeals from offenders await a ruling from the California Supreme Court.
September 30, 2012 Governor Jerry Brown signs SB 9 into law.
July 2013 news article details some of the impact of the new law in California and some problems still being debated.
We have extensive analysis on this website regarding SB 9. Use the pull down tabs above under “States and Legislation > California” to find much more about its unconstitutionality, high cost, legal unneccessity, danger to the public, and violations of victims rights.
Read SB 9 in its final form: http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_9_bill_20120930_chaptered.pdf
Some early analysis of SB 9, now that Governor Brown has signed it into law:
Passage of SB 9 in California Due To Soros Millions
SB 9 was pushed heavily in California by Human Rights Watch after billionaire utopian and anti-incarceration activist George Soros gave them $100 Million dollars to, among other agenda items, end life sentences in general in the United States. His Open Society Institute has worked against natural life sentences for murderers many years. Read more about Soros’ campaigns against laws that keep murderers in prison.
Besides Soros’ millions, who else influenced the Governor? Newt Gingrich and Nancy Pelosi, apparently.
Victims families asked repeatedly for a meeting with the Governor or his staff to give important factual information about serious problems associated with SB 9 but were ignored.
Most difficult to bear by victims families has been the way that advocates for the offenders like Senator Leland Yee and Elizabeth Calvin of Human Rights Watch have ignored victims’ requests for discussion about the legislation. And they both repeatedly privately and publicly exaggerated and even lied about the facts related to some of these convicted killers ages 16 and 17. For example, Senator Yee told California media and legislators several times that the USA was the “only nation in the world” to impose life sentences on teen killers. Not true. Political opposites, the Heritage Foundation and Amnesty International, have documented life or comparable sentences (or worse i.e. death) given to some juvenile offenders convicted of the most serious crimes.
Legislators were not told the truth about what SB 9 would do and what “protections” it offered the public.
1. They were told that the recent Supreme Court ruling required the implementation of SB 9. THIS IS NOT TRUE. The Supreme Court actually held up current California sentencing law for teen killers as a model because it was already OPTIONAL, not mandatory.
2. Advocates for SB 9 in the media and in their lobbying effort said that the almost 300 JLWOP cases in California violated the Supreme Court ruling in Miller v Alabama because they were all mandatory. THIS IS NOT TRUE. All California JLWOP sentences have been optional for many years. Judges have the option of giving these same offenders a 25 to life parole-able sentence.
3. Legislators were told that the recent amendments that prohibited “torture” killings from qualifying for release would protect the public from the “worst’ offenders getting access to release. Read the following comment from one legal expert:
“Although the legislation supposedly also exempts killers who tortured their victims, some lawyers who read it say that the jury would have actually had to make a finding of torture under PC Section 206. None of the hundreds of cases of JLWOP that we have read had such a finding: it wan’t necessary because the “special circumstances” part of their convictions were generally murders committed during a felony robbery or rape, etc. so the torture issue wasn’t even litigated. Although the manner of death may have involved torture, without a finding by the court, those JLWOP offenders will argue they are not exempt from the benefits of SB9.
Penal Code Section 206 provides “Every person who, with the intent to cause cruel or extreme pain and suffering for the purpose of revenge, extortion, persuasion, or for any sadistic purpose, inflicts great bodily injury as defined in Section 12022.7 upon the person of another, is guilty of torture.”3
The JLWOP killers can now argue that their juries were not asked whether their conduct was for revenge, extortion, persuasion or sadistic purpose. SB 9 sponsor Sen. Yee knew exactly what he was doing when he inserted the 206 into the bill. It was meant to confuse and mislead legislators who thought a lot of people would not be able to apply under SB9 if they did torturous and awful acts.”
SB 9 Is Likely Unconstitional
Californians amended their Constitution in 2008 with “Marsy’s Law” protections for crime victims in the criminal justice system. Legal analysts tell us that SB 9 violates those rights to victim participation in their cases. For more, see this page of our website.
NEWS STORIES on SB 9:
Sacramento Bee VIEWPOINT – August 2011 – Recommending a NO Vote on the “Flawed” SB 9:
“…(T)his legislation as written opens up a tangle of issues that makes its potential impact disturbing. First, a justice system that changes the rules in the middle of the game is not just. Prosecutors and judges already have discretion in seeking and imposing life-without-parole sentences and have reserved it for the ‘worst of the worst.’ . . . All states allow juveniles to be tried as adults in criminal court under certain circumstances, according to the U.S. Justice Department. . . .In all these cases, trials have been conducted, witnesses and victims’ families have testified, everyone has played by the rules. SB 9, however, is retroactive – raising serious constitutional and due-process questions. It does a legislative end run around the intent of the voters who in 2008 passed Marsy’s Law, which strengthened victims’ rights and due process. . . [giving] victims the right to ‘a speedy trial and a prompt and final conclusion of the case and any related post-judgment proceedings.’ SB 9 violates this provision by taking a final conclusion of a case and reopening it . . . retroactively introducing parole reviews for early release after a life-without-parole sentence had been imposed. Because murder victims’ families believed their case was over, they often did not retain the records and contacts they would need to be prepared for new parole hearings – an unfair violation of due process, they say. Importantly, appeals and clemency are already available for sentences deemed too harsh. Last January, for example, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger granted clemency to Sara Kruzan, who had been sentenced to life without parole for killing her 37-year-old pimp. “
- NOVJL California victim family leader Maggie Elvey quoted in Fox News Report
- The SacBee – Sunday, Sept. 30, 2012
Sacramento Bee VIEWPOINT – August 2011 – Recommending a NO Vote on the “Flawed” SB 9 that was later defeated:
“…(T)his legislation as written opens up a tangle of issues that makes its potential impact disturbing. First, a justice system that changes the rules in the middle of the game is not just. Prosecutors and judges already have discretion in seeking and imposing life-without-parole sentences and have reserved it for the ‘worst of the worst.’ . . . All states allow juveniles to be tried as adults in criminal court under certain circumstances, according to the U.S. Justice Department. . . .In all these cases, trials have been conducted, witnesses and victims’ families have testified, everyone has played by the rules. SB 9, however, is retroactive – raising serious constitutional and due-process questions. It does a legislative end run around the intent of the voters who in 2008 passed Marsy’s Law, which strengthened victims’ rights and due process. . . [giving] victims the right to ‘a speedy trial and a prompt and final conclusion of the case and any related post-judgment proceedings.’ SB 9 violates this provision by taking a final conclusion of a case and reopening it . . . retroactively introducing parole reviews for early release after a life-without-parole sentence had been imposed. Because murder victims’ families believed their case was over, they often did not retain the records and contacts they would need to be prepared for new parole hearings – an unfair violation of due process, they say. Importantly, appeals and clemency are already available for sentences deemed too harsh. Last January, for example, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger granted clemency to Sara Kruzan, who had been sentenced to life without parole for killing her 37-year-old pimp. “
****************************************************************
Contact information for the Governor of California:
******************************************************************
Victims have strongly opposed SB 9 and previous legislative attempts to release convicted murderers. Proponents of this bill say that too many youths are being incarcerated unfairly for life. That our youth deserve a second chance at life. Unfortunately for the innocent victims that have been killed by these convicted murderers- a second chance at “life” is not an option. The law already allows for appeals and habeas briefs to be filed on behalf of the convicted juvenile murderers. In addition, the Governor has the power to commute sentences in cases he feels a grave injustice has been dealt.
SB 9 allows convicted juvenile murderers sentenced to life without the possibility of parole to ask for a reduction in their sentence and creates a type of parole hearing process for this population.
Click HERE to find California Assemblymembers.
Click HERE to send a letter now.
SB 9 Previously Defeated Again and Brought Back Again
United States Supreme Court ruled on the JLWOP sentence for teen killers in June 2012, finding California juvenile killer sentencing law to be a MODEL FOR THE NATION, and not in need of any change in order to be constitutional.
Despite our victory on August 25, 2011 defeating SB 9, Sen. Yee and offender advocates have brought it back in early 2012. Yee and advocates for the teen killers tried again to pressure a few NO votes (the good guys) to turn their vote around. But they had to come up with 41 votes to change the outcome, which they failed to do. The most votes they ever received was 36 in 2011.
Senator Yee had tried to put in an amendment on Sept 2, 2011 that attempted to win the needed votes, but they proved his case wrong. With the amendment he added, Yee admitted that there are some 16 and 17-year-old killers who should never be considered for parole, based solely on the circumstances of the offense. He proposed exempting those who tortured their victims and those who murdered law enforcement. Those proposals that ultimately helped SB 9 pass proved two things:
1. That all murder victims’ lives are not viewed as equally valuable.
2. That Yee admitted under law that some teen killers should never be given a chance at release.
People listening to conversations in Sacramento heard that Sen. Yee and his supporters lied about how many cases the “torture” provision would apply to. They said it would exempt many JLWOP offenders. The facts are that unless the inmate was convicted of a torture murder in the original charging and conviction language, the provision would not apply. That is most of the JLWOP cases. The fact is that most murders involve some degree of torture to their victims. The amendment was specious at best.
And the amendment attempts raised other questions: why define this small class of 16 and 17 year old murderers with “special circumstances” (extreme aggravation) with a small, rigid set of circumstances that will surely miss some cases where LWOP would be appropriate? Why not, instead, just allow the trial judge to choose life-with-parole or life-without-parole at the time of sentencing based on all the circumstances? That would be the CURRENT law. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
The amendments undercut Yee’s heretofore reason for eliminating JLWOP in the first place; that teens are mature enough to understand the nature and consequences of their actions. The “brain development” junk science argument was out the window. The raw political vote trading attempt was unworthy of these serious, non-partisan, life and death matters!
Worst of all, after advocates for SB 9 had screamed “racism” and “classism” throughout the debate, under these ill-advised provisions they would discriminate by CLASS against murder victims’ family members by telling us that if our loved one was not a public employee their lives do not deserve the same JUSTICE as those who do work for the state.
THANK Our Legislative Heroes
Please thank our heroes who voted NO or abstained on SB 9. This detailed packet that documents these crimes shows how SB 9 is unconstitutional, unnecessary, dangerous, costly, and re-victimizing.
Offender Advocates LIE in California
We who already have had loved ones murdered by these offenders are VERY tired of offender advocates resorting to lies during their failed campaign. These include: that the USA stands alone in sentencing teen killers to life for highly aggravated murders, that most of these offenders were “victims” of racism, that murder victims families supported their release (NOT true – none of the victims of THESE crimes supported the bill, and most were not even told of it), that this bill would save the taxpayers money (NOT true – it would have cost millions extra) and so on.
On August 25. 2011 SB 9 only received 36 votes in the Assembly, 5 short of the 41 needed to pass it into law. NOVJL is deeply grateful to all those who stood up for the victims families of these crimes.
Use the pull down tabs above to get much more information on the bill, these offenders, their crimes, and the campaign to free them that was conducted in a manner SO hurtful to victims families.
To send a letter to your representative stating your thanks for their vote is they opposed SB 9 click HERE.
This measure would cost the taxpayers MILLIONS of dollars in added hearing costs and legal challenges for convicted murderers who already have significant protections in place allowing challenges to their sentences.
See our page listing all California Senators and their contact information.
To find your individual state legislators in California click here
Read the letter of the California District Attorneys in opposition to SB 9.
California’s Extremely Reasonable Treatment of Teen Killers
One of the reasons that California has fewer teen killers sentenced to life or long term sentences proportionally than other states is because of the extraordinary protections already afforded them. California has a good model we believe for the rest of the nation’s offender advocates to learn from. The JLWOP sentence is available and generally not over-used for extremely dangerous killers. But because of their ages the offenders have extra layers of legal support.
For example, unlike most other states, no teen killer under the age of 16 can receive a life sentence. Only those 16-18 are eligible. We know statistically, nationally, that the numbers of cases from other states that are 15 and under are so few that it seems that the overall national data would seem to indicate that JLWOP (Juvenile Life Without Parole) is primarily something that should be available for that 16-18 age group in most cases.
Also, in California teen criminals facing transfer to adult court get an extra hearing, a chance to argue, case by case, before the court that they should not be tried as an adult. And even if they lose in that legal step, they get another chance once transferred to adult court to argue for a transfer back down to juvenile court. Extraordinary legal protections, indeed compared to many states that have mandatory transfers to criminal courts from juvenile courts.
And teen killers that continue in their case through these layers, they can only get a life sentence if the murder is one with “special circumstances” – that is, an extreme aggravation. Perhaps it was a multiple or mass murder. Or perhaps it was rape and murder of a child, etc.
Why, then, is there an effort to free some of the worst killers in California?
Why with these exemplary protections for juvenile offenders in California, has Senator Yee been so focused on passing retroactive legislation, violating victims rights, to free these murderers? Some of the few most horrific criminals in our nation’s history, and he wants the victims of these crimes to have to spend the rest of their lives battling, over and over and over, the regular opportunities for release that he would offer these killers.
Not only that, but in the worst economic climate his state has ever faced, his proposed legislation would cost millions more to taxpayers in extra proceedings to give frequent parole reviews to convicted murderers serving life without parole. Financial analysis by legal experts estimate that Yee’s proposals would cost upwards of $50,000 per inmate per proceeding.
Elsewhere on this website are detailed responses and analyses regarding the other faulty arguments being advanced in support of Yee’s legislation.
We are grateful for the many wonderful victims groups and leaders standing up to protect each other.
Letter from Sacramento County District Attorney Jan Scully re SB 9
March 25, 2011 Letter From Jan Scully To Senate
Office of the District Attorney, Sacramento County
Jan Scully, District Attorney
Cynthia G. Besemer, Chief Deputy
Albert C. Locher, Assistant District Attorney
P.O. Box 749, 901 G Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 874-6218 FAX 874-5340
March 25, 2011
The Honorable Senate Member Loni Hancock
Chair, Senate Public Safety Committee
State Capital, Room 2090
Sacramento, CA 94248
RE: SB 9 Opposition
Dear Senator Hancock:
Jimmy Siackasorn had been a juvenile court ward for over four years, and had absconded over a dozen times from eight separate delinquency court placements. On December 19, 2007, at the age of 16 years 10 months old, while he was a fugitive from one of those placements, two Sacramento Sheriff’s detectives saw him on the street. As they pulled over to talk to him, Siackasorn ran. Detective Vu Nguyen chased him on foot. As the chase went over some chicken coops, Siackasorn shot Detective Nguyen three times, killing him. He later told officers that he knew the detective was a police officer, and shot him because “he deserved it.” To an officer who photographed him after his arrest, Siackasorn said, “Lucky I didn’t see you on the street. Would have shot your ass, too.” The evidence showed Siackasorn threatened to kill police and probation officers many times in the past. In a statement that would be ruled to be voluntary, but only admissible if the defendant testified (in which case it could be used for impeachment), Siackasorn said he saw Detective Nguyen’s partner (Detective Ed Yee) still in the police vehicle, and “I could have let him have it right there…Next lifetime be better….next lifetime kill more than one cop.”
On June 7, 2008, William Deer, a 50 year old disabled man who used a cane, bought coffee at a 7-11 in Rancho Cordova, then sat down to drink it on the sidewalk in front of a closed business (the time was after 2:00 a.m.). Frank Abella and James Washington approached him, hit him and kicked him in the head several times, then stole his wallet, cell phone, and some medication Deer had. During the next hour, Abella and Washington returned to where Deer lay on the ground and shot him some 20 times at close range with a BB gun, 13 times in the torso and 7 times in the face. Many of these penetrated the skin, and led to the unusual autopsy finding that the BB wounds contributed to Deer’s death. The attack was so vicious that in addition to robbery and murder, both defendants were convicted of torture by intending to cause cruel or extreme pain and suffering. James Washington’s 18th birthday was just nine days before the crime. Frank Abella, whose birthday was just 33 days after Washington’s, was 17 years 11 months at the time; he would turn 18 years old just 24 days after he helped torture and kill the disabled, vulnerable William Deer.
Jimmy Siackasorn, James Washington (an adult by nine days at the time of the Deer murder) and Frank Abella (a juvenile just 24 days from his 18th birthday at the time of the murder) were all sentenced to life without parole in 2010.
SB9 would permit sentences for life without parole for those who commit murder with special circumstances under the age of 18 to be modified, permitting parole. It would allow the ruthless, unrepentant cop-killer Siackasorn, and the sadistic torture murderer Abella, a chance at parole.
I am writing to urge you to oppose this bill.
Current law provides adequate safeguards against the abuse of the life without parole penalty. Prosecutors have discretion whether or not to seek the penalty. Sentencing judges have discretion not to impose it even when the proper charges and jury findings have been made. The provisions of SB 9 would subject the families of murder victims to a multi-step process. First would be the court hearing on the defendant’s petition for the sentence to be modified to allow parole. If the court did modify the sentence, the victim’s family would then be forced to relive the events, probably many times, traveling to and speaking at each subsequent parole board hearing.
The same proposal was rejected by the Legislature last term (SB 399). Now, in this new legislative term, it has arisen again. The bill number is different, but all of the reasons that this bill is still a bad idea are the same.
Accountability is a central pillar of our criminal justice system. I urge you not to weaken that accountability for those, sixteen years and older, who commit the worst crimes. On behalf of Detective Vu Nguyen, disabled William Deer, their families, and those crime victims still to come, I urge you to vote no on SB 9.
Sincerely,
Jan Scully
District Attorney
From Crime Victims Action Alliance
Senate Bill 9 (YEE) is a special interest bill that would allow convicted first-degree murders who have been sentenced to life in prison without parole the opportunity to have their lawfully imposed sentence reduced based solely on their youth.Since the California’s criminal justice system already allows for appeals and filing writs of hapeas corpus, this process is un-necessary – it duplicates safeguards already in place and will cost the state of California millions of dollars.The Crime Victims Action Alliance opposes SB 9 as do law enforcement and fellow crime victim rights organizations. To send a letter to your representative opposing SB 9 click HERE.
