I’m writing this because I hope Jose changes his vote when this comes up again today (Friday.) MONDAY. If you want to call him, his number is 714-939-8469 or 916-319-2069. We would like him to vote in favor of Leland Yee’s SB 399, the “Fair Sentencing For Youth Act,” especially now that it has been amended to be a little tougher.
In California, many young people under the age of 18 are sentenced to spend the rest of their lives in prison. No other country in the world allows this barbaric practice – not Russia, not Iran, not Cuba. Senate Bill 399, the Fair Sentencing For Youth Act, would review these cases and require young people to work towards rehabilitation. If they can prove that they have turned their lives around, they will have an opportunity to be resentenced.
Typically many of these kids were doing something dumb like acting as a lookout during a drug deal where a murder ended up taking place, and then everybody involved got life. This bill, which would only affect about 250 such prisoners, would allow them to show that they have reformed and try to make a new start after simply hanging out with the wrong crowd when they were 16 or 17. And apart from the simple humanity of the measure, not keeping all these poor kids in prison their whole lives would save taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.
But when the bill got to the assembly floor on Tuesday, it sadly fell seven votes short of passage. As David Dayen wrote in his outraged summary:
The State Assembly, dominated by Democrats with a 50-29 majority (with one independent), voted down a bill that would have allowed courts to review cases of juveniles sentences to life without the possibility of parole. The sponsor of the bill, LeLand Yee (D-San Francisco), noted that “No other country in the world outside of the United States allows children to be sentenced to life without parole.” But over a dozen Assembly Democrats, either worried about close races in November or future statewide races (and the hopes of gaining support from police officers, prison guards or other interests that support the “tough on crime” status quo), either voted against the bill or walked away from the vote. This bill would have affected a grand total of 250 inmates and gave them the opportunity to prevent being locked up from a mistake made when they were children.
Santa Ana’s own Jose Solorio was one of the “No” votes. As nobody can remember the name of whatever Republican is running against him this year, he doesn’t fall under the “close race” category, but he IS a major recipient of Prison Guard money. His office was unable to give me an explanation for his “No” vote, so for now we can only assume he is trying to keep that Prison Guard money flowing rather than doing the right thing. [update: Jose lets us know via Facebook that the correctional peace officers association actually supports the bill. This merely makes it even more mystifying why he’s opposing it.]
In order to make the bill more palatable to these cautious, “tough-on-crime” Democrats, author Leland Yee has added a few amendments, and will be trying again to pass it today (Friday.) Monday. Those alterations:
- Instead of allowing youth offenders to appeal their sentence after 10 years in prison, they would have to wait until year 15.
- Convicts would be restricted to two appeals, instead of a total of four.
- Juvenile defendants would have to “show remorse and work toward rehabilitation” before they can be considered for a new hearing.
- The new sentence could only be 25 years to life, nothing more lenient.
Solorio’s office was also unsure yesterday how he would vote today with these amendments. Let’s hope he does the right thing and helps to pass this important, sensible and humane bill. We will keep you updated!
More, IMPORTANT stuff on the Fair Sentencing For Youth Act here – including documentation of my above minimization of the crimes of many of these kids. Another great article here which should give you sympathy for these unfortunates.
Just saw on FB that the prison guards actually support this measure, so this needs a rewrite.
CCPOA has a new website where they are actually beginning a bunch of common sense reforms like this. Turns out that if there is no reward for good behavior, life is harder and more dangerous for prison guards.
So maybe something like, Solorio Endangers safety personnel, sides with Tea Party Knuckledraggers.
I want to know the particulars of these 250 youthful offenders.
You have stated that they are innocent children serving life sentencing for being a look-out. Implying that the Jury and Court System are evil in applying the law.
Those other counties put their MAD-DOG Rapists and Murders to death.
In California they (the mad dogs) get Life. And a better life than they earned.
Simple. He’s voting where the money is, which is with the prison unions.
Well… maybe Sol, but it’s looking not that simple. As I wrote in my update, the prison guards union has come out in FAVOR of this reform!
As Quimby points out, this post does not make much sense as a critique of Assemblymember Solario given that the prison guards favor the bill, but the post has other problems as well.
Consider the author’s claim: “Typically many of these kids were doing something dumb like acting as a lookout during a drug deal where a murder ended up taking place, and then everybody involved got life.” If there is any factual basis for the author’s use of the word ‘typically’, then the author should provide the statistics. Instead, the author provides not so much as a single case in which a defendant under 18 years of age has been sentenced to life in prison for merely serving as a lookout to a drug deal that ended in a death. There is a good reason for the lack of evidence: there is none.
The only way a defendant might even be charged with murder on those facts would be under California’s felony murder rule, which allows prosecutors to charge a defendant with murder if he played a role in a felony that resulted in a death.
However, the charge would never stick against someone who merely served as a lookout in a drug deal. The felony murder rule only applies to a list of felonies deemed inherently dangerous by the state legislature, namely arson, carjacking, robbery, burglary, train wrecking, kidnapping, mayhem, and torture – see California Penal Code.
The idea behind the law is to discourage people from committing crimes that involve the risk that someone will die during their commission, and as you can see, aiding and abetting a drug deal is not on the state legislature’s list of inherently dangerous felonies.
Thus, not only is it false that “typically many of these kids were doing something dumb like acting as a lookout during a drug deal where a murder ended up taking place, and then everybody involved got life,” it is not even possible under California law.
While it can happen that a very young person is sentenced to a long or even a life sentence, this only happens when the charge against him is a very, very serious one. SB 399 proposes an approach to sentencing youth who have in fact committed serious crimes in which alternative sentencing for young defendants who qualify would be possible “after ten years.”
The stated reasoning offered in support of SB 399, see the summary of the bill below, raises a lot of serious questions. It says that because young offenders are immature when they commit certain serious offenses, they deserve a chance to be reassessed once they have had a chance to mature. How do you sell this bill to the family members of, say, a 16 year old murder victim? “In spite of the fact that the 18 year old defendant killed your 16 year old daughter as part of his initiation into a gang, we think that he has the potential to be rehabilitated now that he is 28 years old, an age your daughter will never reach because the defendant shot her dead ten years ago.” And what if the immaturity defense becomes available to people over 18? After all, many people are “still maturing” at 19, 20, or even 30. Can you imagine convicted murderers routinely serving only ten years in prison because their lawyers were able to convince a jury that they were immature when they committed the offense?
It is irresponsible for the Orange Juice blog to undermine the authority and credibility of our state’s legal system with claims about the unfairness of its laws without providing so much as a shred of evidence in support of those claims. The more cynical the public’s view of our legal system, the less respect people will have for it, and the less respect people have for the law, the greater the risk to each of us of becoming a victim of crime.
Furthermore, we have little use for a blog that criticizes Democrats like Solario on grounds that exist only in the blogger’s imagination. The standards established in SB 399 for determining a convict’s eligibility for a reduced sentence are high. OJ never got a statement from Solario as to his reasons for voting against SB 399, so for all Nelson knows, Solario wants to lower those standards – though I don’t think he wants to do that. The point is that Nelson’s criticism is unfair to Solario.
There are good reasons for one to be wary of SB 399 even if one ultimately decides to support it. I think we should give Solario a little credit.
In the future, the author of an OJ blog post has something to say, let him say it responsibly; but if he just wants to free associate, let him do that in private.
The SB399 Bill
The Fair Sentences for Youth Act recognizes that all young people, even those serving life sentences, have the capacity to change for the better and should have access to the rehabilitative tools to do so. This Act would provide an opportunity for review and resentencing after ten years or more of incarceration for youth sentenced to life without parole in prison. Recognizing that teenagers are still maturing, this Act creates specific criteria and an intense, three-part review process that would result in the possibility of a lesser sentence for those offenders who have matured and proven themselves to have changed. Under this Act, youth offenders serving life sentences first would have to submit a petition to the sentencing court showing they have met certain criteria. Those offenders who are found to have met the criteria would have the opportunity for a resentencing hearing. Not all youth would get a new sentencing hearing, and those who did would have no guarantee of getting a lesser sentence. Even if resentenced, most offenders will still face a parole board and must prove they merit parole. Otherwise, they will remain in prison. There would be no guarantee of parole, only the opportunity to earn it.
Hmm,
A quick hint to Mr. Lara,
Many articles on the internet make use of things that are called “links”. If you hover your mouse over one of these highlighted “links” and then click with your “mouse”, you will be almost instantly transported to another place on the internet, which might indeed have different content.
Mr. Nelson’s excellent post provides two of these “links”. One goes to a place that includes an a particular case of a girl who was forced into prostitution at the age of 13 who killed her pimp at the age of 16.
The other “link” goes to an extensive discussion of the bill which includes the following quote,
In California, Human Rights Watch estimates that 45 percent of youth offenders serving life without parole were convicted of murder but were not the ones to actually commit the murder. This is possible under California law which holds youth responsible for a murder that happens while they were part of a felony, even if they did not plan or expect a murder to occur.
“No other country in the world allows this barbaric practice – not Russia, not Iran, not Cuba.”…… interesting comrade Vern.
National Socialists in Germany did. Recently you have post an article regarding a concentration camp and I have added link to a history of that camp. You have censured it, claiming denial of the Holocaust which was not true evaluation of that link so be it.
If you would read it you would learn that it was originally built prior to war in 1933 for purpose to lockup dangerous prisoners after their release from prison……. sound familiar?
This is clear evidence that Solorio and other Mexican Socialists in Sacramento think like National Socialists in Germany and that is why you will never print truth truth. As result, thanks to you people will never learn that they living in state with same laws like under Adolf Hitler.
What is it… August 2010. And so I guess Dr. Lara is back on a … what is it, manic part of his cycle? Where Vern is again his Moby Dick, and he is the lone brave defender of the Democratic Party from its internal critics? Oh, fun times again!
You did see Quimby’s comment above, right? i was on solid ground, even though I kept my post short due to time constraints. Have you figured out that “link” thing yet?
By the way my friend’s name is SolOrio, with an “O”. If you wanna be such a reverent unquestioning kiss-ass, learn that much at least. And I would be a bad Democrat, as you ARE, if I never questioned or criticized our representatives.
Jose has yet to get back to me on his reasoning for opposing this bill, or whether he’s gonna change his mind on it. But my pushing him will have an effect, and your obsequious sophistry will get us nowhere.
Now take a deep breath, Richard, and say to yourself, “Vern Nelson is not the enemy.”
“”Jose has yet to get back to me on his reasoning for opposing this bill””
Vern,
Jose is a parent too, and he does not want mad-dog rapists and murders out on the streets to rape and kill again.
Well Cook, you can’t have it both ways.
If, based on stupid California laws, a 17.99 years old boy have no understanding of sex with 35 years old teacher how can he have understanding of killing…… huh?
Explain to me that one.
This is truly political garbage. Every time some 6 year old kid kills his parents because they abuse him, the prosecutors are tripping all over them selves to try him as an adult.
However, in most natural and beautiful human act like sex 17.99 year old is a child.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
You got some reading comprehension to work on yourself, brother. Again, from my link that the Mayor cut and pasted:
“45 percent of youth offenders serving life without parole in California were convicted of murder but were not the ones to actually commit the murder. This is possible under California law which holds youth responsible for a murder that happens while they were part of a felony, even if they did not plan or expect a murder to occur.”
I do not believe that I do agree with you comrade Vern.
It started in 70s when politicians were showing how tough they are on the crime and started jailing kids for crimes the did not committed or clearly acted in self defense, not speaking about the the stupid war on drugs BS.
Unfortunately, these are your socialists whether they are left or right comrade Vern.
The Three strikes, Jesica law, Chelsea law, they all coming up with most ridiculous punishments based on public outrage.
You can be easily charged with three felonies by committing a single crime and prosecutors go for life to show how tough they are. That was not an intent of that law.
The California justice is total misjustice — punishing innocent and releasing criminals from jail.
What really gets me is how so many young men and older women are tried for consensual sex based on stupid statutory rape and are labeled for rest of their life as sex predators and real sex predators like Catholic priests and COPs in the child social services wards are handed children for the sex abuse on the plate.
Thanks to socialists we are the primitive country.
Well I’m not sure that “socialist” is the right word, but I do agree with you comrade.
Okay, let’s do it your way. I think you need to read this passage over and over until you understand it, though I am beginning to wonder if you will ever understand it. The 45% refers to defendants who were involved in a felony during which and because of which a murder took place (murders are bad), and none of them were, as you said, merely “doing something dumb like acting as a lookout during a drug deal where a murder ended up taking place.” What that means is that all 45% were actively involved in a felony that caused an innocent person’s death and that none of them were, as you think, merely the hapless victims of their own dumb luck. In other words, your quote UNDERMINES your claim instead of supporting your claim. In still other words, you are mistaken, wrong, confused, etc. Perhaps if we reduced this already very simple point to a Sesame Street skit, then you could understand it – but I have my doubts.
Some of the countries listed as more lenient than California with terms of sentences for juvenile offenders have shorter terms for henious crimes committed by juveniles – death. The post makes apples and oranges comparison in an attempt to mislead. Just look at the dead youth in Santa Ana this year, shot when walking home from school etc. The shooter, even if a juvenile, should never be back out on the streets again once caught, whether “reformed” or not. Not in my community.
Ah, but do those countries have our great California law that “holds youth responsible for a murder that happens while they were part of a felony, even if they did not plan or expect a murder to occur?” I’m not sure, but they probably don’t. California voters have been mad dogs for extreme “law and order” for decades, and too many politicians are afraid not to follow suit.
We are not talking about the committers of “heinous crimes,” if you read any of the above comments. Apples and oranges back at you, and “attempt to mislead” as well.
We are all talking about non-heinous crimes, but they are crimes that endanger human life. If you help in the commission of felony that endangers human life, who cares whether or not the defendant expected or planned for the murder to take place. The felony in which they were involved was an inherently dangerous felony, one that was likely to result in someone’s death; and they chose to participate in that felony. In other words, they chose to gamble with human life in order to carry out a felony, and someone died as a result. Vern thinks that if the defendant decides to drive the getaway car in an armed robbery and someone is shot to death in that robbery, the driver should not be held responsible for the death because he neither planned nor expected that anyone would be killed. Never mind that anyone with any sense would know how dangerous armed robbery is, Vern thinks their depravity should be rewarded by not holding them responsible for helping the killing take place. In short, Vern, the voice of reason, thinks that if you choose to participate in a life-endangering felony but don’t plan or expect that anyone will be killed, then you should not be charged with murder if someone is killed. In other words, criminals should have the right to gamble with our lives when they are committing felonies, so long as they are not the one’s who actually pull the trigger.
Trial by jury
Trial by jury
Trial by jury
“”We are not talking about the committers of “heinous crimes,”””
Trial by jury
Trial by jury
Trial by jury
“”California law that “holds youth responsible for a murder that happens while they were part of a felony””
Trial by jury
Trial by jury
Trial by jury
California could save a lot of money by eliminating the court system and cops, etc. Everyone would have their own gun (six shooter) or not. And settle their differences by force of arms.
Vern, your links are to “Opinion pieces” written for compensation.
Criminals in California are convicted by “Trial by jury” based of facts and law, not Opinion pieces” written for compensation. Also there is a appeals system in place to follow up too.
Cook, you are romanticizing Trial by jury!
Have you ever been tried by the jury?……. I was.
Do you know why I was convicted by the jury?…….. because they could not believe that I was telling the truth.
In my trial re domestic violence we decided that we will not discus anything before trial so my 10 year old daughter would not have to testify to that. It was premeditated silence.
I was convicted because they did not believe that we did not discus the case or coached each other, nice justice…. huh?
And if jury does not believe one single element of your testimony they can find you guilty on all charges.
Same like in mid evil ages…. they drop you in the water for 5 minutes and if you emerge dead you are innocent and if you emerge life you are guilty and then they hang you.
However, most trials are decided pre-bargaining and here is the kicker. They usually give you low sentence so you take the bargain plus probation which you cant live up to. Like to see officer during your work hours so you lose the job.
Then they fry you on the violation and you never get from that meat grinder.
Most kids have no money for an attorney so they never get fair trial.
You have no clue what you are talking about cook.
I don’t like our court system. It should be much much bigger, it should be the largest branch of the government.
And for your trial, you did what you had to, you took the hit to protect your family.
Wrong Cook!
We need to cut it in half and cut our laws about 1:100 and normalize the living concept.
Too much prohibition everywhere.
We are already in on big jail.
Quimby,
I think you were trying to defend Nelson, but you actually helped me make my point.
Yes, the 16 year old girl MURDERED her pimp, and that is a very serious crime, namely murder. She was NOT merely “serving as a lookout to a drug deal during which someone was killed,” which is a much lesser crime, namely aiding and abetting. Do you see the difference between murder and serving as a lookout in a drug deal? It is a big difference, don’t you think?
Now, this girl is a great candidate for the kind of special consideration that SB 399 proposes because of her young age at the time she committed the crime, but also because her normal development was likely thwarted beyond what most of us can imagine – and not merely because she was immature.
As for your quote – “In California, Human Rights Watch estimates that 45 percent of youth offenders serving life without parole were convicted of murder but were not the ones to actually commit the murder…,” the relevant California law is the felony murder rule that I discussed above. For example, if you serve as the lookout in an armed robbery, and someone is killed during that robbery, you can be charged with the murder even if you did not do the killing. This law is designed to discourage people from participating in inherently dangerous crimes because such crimes are likely to result in someone’s death.
The linked article to which you, Quimby, so sarcastically drew to my attention supports my point – it does not support your defense of Nelson. A quote from that article says: “In California, approximately 250 people who were juveniles when they committed their crimes are serving lifetime prison sentences without the possibility of parole. Calvin said that nearly half of those defendants are not actually murderers but were convicted of murder because they were present AND PARTICIPATING in some other illegal activity [namely a felony deemed inherently dangerous by the state legislature] when someone was killed, and that most had no prior criminal convictions.” Again, it is not possible under the law that any of the young incarcerated people in question are in jail for merely serving as lookouts during a drug deal that resulted in a death. They had to have been present and to have participated in one of the felonies deemed inherently dangerous by the legislature – kidnapping, torture, robbery, etc. – in order to be convicted of murder in that way. Therefore, contrary to what Nelson said, NONE of these kids were merely doing something like acting as a lookout during a drug deal when someone was killed. Instead, they were all present and participating in inherently dangerous felonies, i.e. felonies that were likely to result in someone’s death. Do you see the difference, Quimby?
What about the other linked article?:
“In California, Human Rights Watch estimates that 45 percent of youth offenders serving life without parole were convicted of murder but were not the ones to actually commit the murder. This is possible under California law which holds youth responsible for a murder that happens while they were part of a felony, even if they did not plan or expect a murder to occur.”
This article does not help you either. A defendant cannot be convicted of murder in this way in California except under the felony murder rule, which I just explained (again). Therefore, the 45% figure does not apply to cases in which the defendant was, as Nelson said, merely “serving as a lookout to a drug deal during which someone was killed.” The felony murder rule does not apply to crimes that are as (relatively) innocuous as making a drug deal because drug deals are not considered inherently dangerous crimes. The 45% figure applies to only those cases in which a defendant was present at AND participating in an inherently dangerous felony, one that involved a high risk that someone would die.
If you think about it a little, the felony murder rule makes a lot of sense in theory even if it does not always work as well as we would like it to in practice. If someone commits a crime, like kidnapping, that we all know is sufficiently dangerous as to result in someone’s death, and if someone, say the person who is kidnapped, is killed while resisting his or her kidnappers, should the kidnappers be immune to a murder conviction just because they did not intend to kill the person they tried to kidnap? The state legislature says that if you engage in this and other risky crimes, and if someone dies as a result, then you are on the hook for murder. That makes sense. After all, what right do criminals, even first time criminals, have to gamble with the lives of law abiding citizens?
For what it is worth, I think SB 399 is a good bill. I want to see these young people have the option to have their cases reviewed so that if, after ten years, they qualify, they can have their sentences reduced to 25 years to life. What I don’t like is Nelson’s criticism of Solorio and his misrepresentation of the current law.
Unfortunately, Nelson seems unable to weather a little fair criticism without succumbing to delusions of grandeur and resorting to name calling. I wonder: does everyone who Nelson criticizes react to his criticisms as he has reacted to mine?
I don’t think Nelson is the enemy, and I think it is a little cowardly for him to take that tack. Why doesn’t he just either defend his words or admit he is mistaken. I think that Nelson’s treatment of this issue is, well, a mistreatment. If Nelson wants to play the part of a “critic” and a ” questioner,” that is fine with me. All I ask is that he inject a little substance into his efforts. If he fails to do so, that does not make me a “kiss-ass.” Until he does, neither Solorio nor any other elected official nor anyone at all would be wise to respond to any of Nelson’s queries. What would be the point of doing that? Look how he responded to my comments: name calling and all other manner of silliness. I sincerely believed, and still believe, that Nelson could do better. Otherwise, I would not have bothered to point out his errors, namely 1) claiming that our legal system sentences children to life in prison for crimes like aiding and abetting and 2) accusing Solorio of voting against SB 399 for merely political reasons while admitting that he did not know why Solorio voted the way he did. These are valid criticisms of Nelson’s comments. However, if Nelson finds these criticisms overwhelming, if they leave him fearing that I think he is “the enemy,” and if he can only respond to them with name calling, then I obviously overestimated him.
“Yes, the 16 year old girl MURDERED her pimp, and that is a very serious crime, namely murder. She was NOT merely “serving as a lookout to a drug deal during which someone was killed,” which is a much lesser crime, namely aiding and abetting. Do you see the difference between murder and serving as a lookout in a drug deal? It is a big difference, don’t you think?”……. very unintelligent Richard!
Where is a concept of self defense?…… huh?
Is a pimp human being deserving a protection?
There is a difference between murder and killing.
The killing is legal murder is not.
If the only way out of the prostitution is choice between walking out on the pimp and be killed by him for disloyalty or kill the pimp I say she has right to kill the pimp even if premeditated.
As long as Police will not help you have absolute right to help your self.
Lets say she went to police and they rested pimp and give him 2 years in prison. First thing he does after he gets out is killing her as revenge. It happens all the time.
There is no way out when you are dealing with lawless individuals.
Recently there was a case in San Bernardino when a judge disregarded threats that a boyfriend will kill girlfriends child — 5 days later he did kill the child. Only way to protect her child was to kill the boyfriend. Should she have kill him?
Two Westminster COPs kidnapped and raped a women recently. Only way to protect herself was to kill COPs. Should she have kill them?
Richard, you are obviously have misguided liberal justice ideas!
Jose told me at the Truman Dinner last night that he still opposes the bill even with its amendments. He showed me on his Blackberry a list (from some victims’ rights group) of the heinous crimes some of these kids committed. Repeat, SOME of them. Of course this bill’s not going to automatically grant early release to all of them. But as Richard stubbornly refuses to grasp, many of these kids – 45% it looks like – weren’t doing anything horrible at all, they were hanging with the wrong crowd and something went awry. And yes, then everybody involved gets life. I’ve met people that happened to. Don’t forget, I’ve been in jail too.
Jose also didn’t like that the sentence changes would be retroactive rather than “going forward,” he said that would be very unfair to the victims. It seems victims rights groups have been doing a lot of talking to him.
He also said something I took a little bit of offense to – that “many of these victims are minorities themselves.” I was all, so? How does that tilt the scales of justice? That makes the crimes worse than if the victims were white? I guess that’s a liberal tic that I don’t get down with.
A few minutes earlier I was talking to Speaker John Perez (who looks like two men sharing a suit) – a big supporter of the bill. He says he hopes to get seven more votes for it on Monday, although he’s pessimistic. He says he thinks Jose is wrong, and we should keep up pressure on him. But Jose seems pretty set on this. Some of us know how stubborn he can be!
Richard, sorry if I over-reacted, but it’s hard to forget all your crazy personal attacks on me (and Debbie Cook, but mostly me) in 2007-8. It seemed like the old Richard popping his head up again.
But it’s not very patriotic, or Democratic of you, to suggest that it’s wrong or “dangerous” for any of us to criticize our justice system or our elected Democratic representatives. And when an assemblyman’s top aides don’t know why he voted a certain way on a controversial bill, it IS appropriate to speculate until you hear more.
See Vern, Jose has taken the time and effort to get the real facts, ” the heinous crimes some of these kids committed”
You have offered only opinion pieces written for profit as your justification for a blanket pardon for “mad-dog rapist/murders” cause maybe, possible one or two might be, What? you don’t even make a case for them to be innocent.
“Estimated 45%” = no facts, pulled out of air.
…………..
Stan, I know it is easy to misunderstand what I typed. I am for more courts, so people can take their case to court instead of the cheaper drive by shooting.
The mountain of BS laws needs to be curtailed, along with the legislative and executive branches of government. And going to court is a right, and should not cost an arm and a leg.
I was looking forward to the can-can dances at the beginning of council meeting if you got to be Mayor.
“Stan, I know it is easy to misunderstand what I typed. I am for more courts, so people can take their case to court instead of the cheaper drive by shooting.”……. sure!
I can see a kid who prepayed $5,000 for the cocaine delivery and got screwed to take his case to the small claim court.
Get real cook!….. The killing is the only option.
You want to stop it — stop prohibitions.
“He also said something I took a little bit of offense to – that ‘many of these victims are minorities themselves.’ I was all, so? How does that tilt the scales of justice? That makes the crimes worse than if the victims were white? I guess that’s a liberal tic that I don’t get down with.”………… you are learning comrade Vern and that is good.
Remember your socialist’s mantra: If you kill minority it is hate crime, but killing white is only a crime.
Be Careful What You Pray For…You Just Might Get It.
Vern,
As you know, I never attacked either Cook or you in a personal vein. As is clear from your earlier responses to my first comment, you are the master of personal attacks. It seems that attacking the person rather than rationally discussing their opinions is your default mode. Indeed, suggesting that my attack on you was personal when it was not is itself an indirect personal attack in lieu of responsible discussion of the issue. You did the same thing when you got yourself into trouble during the Cook campaign, and you still have not learned your lesson. Your default mode is evident in your last comment: “Richard, sorry if I over-reacted, but it’s hard to forget all your crazy personal attacks on me (and Debbie Cook, but mostly me) in 2007-8. It seemed like the old Richard popping his head up again.” You think that if someone disagrees with you or someone you fancy, then they are thereby being “crazy” and abusing you (“personal attacks”). Your misguided thinking then justifies you, though only in your own mind, in launching personal attacks on your critics. If someone does not think the way you do, then they are “crazy,” or “stubborn,” or “manic depressive,” or “delusional,” or etc. It is really quite an impressive arsenal of abusive terms that you have stockpiled in preparation for your critics. However, there is more to critique, questioning, and responding to criticisms and questions than misrepresenting who and what you criticize/question and then heaping abuse on them when they call you on it.
During the primary, I criticized one of Cook’s positions as it related to her conduct, as did the LA Times and various other more liberal newspapers and bloggers. I also criticized your conduct because it was totally inappropriate, but it was nothing personal.
I am afraid that stubbornness, mine or anyone else’s, has nothing to do with it. The problem is that you are having trouble understanding the law that has landed the youth in question in jail for life. They were not innocent bystanders, they were both PRESENT AND PARTICIPATING in felonies that were likely to result in someone’s death and that DID result in someone’s death. That makes them culpable under the law, and SB 399 and its author(s) do not, unlike you, think that the youth in question were innocent bystanders. The bill and its supporters (the one’s who understand the relevant law) merely think that because of their youth, these youngsters deserve, in some cases, to have their sentences reduced.
Again, I think the bill is a good one but not because I think that the people in prison for life were not guilty of the crimes of which they were committed. In my opinion, you don’t have to be the one who pulls the trigger in order to be guilty, both legally and morally, of murder. If you merely drive the car in a drive-by shooting (felony mayhem), and if someone is killed as a result, then you were present at and participating in the underlying felony, which was likely to result in someone’s death, and you are guilty of the murder. Even if you were merely serving as the lookout for an armed robbery (felony robbery) during which someone was killed, then you are guilty of the underlying felony for being present at it and for participating in it, and so you are guilty of the murder.
I agree with SB 399’s efforts to allow for review of felony murder and other life-sentence convictions in the case of very young people, but I disagree with your misrepresentation of the law as sentencing such young people to life in prison for merely being in the wrong place at the wrong time. If you want to criticize the law, then by all means, do it. The felony murder rule is highly controversial, and I have a number of criticisms of it. But misrepresenting the law, as you do, is irresponsible and it muddles the issue.
Again, there are no personal attacks in this or in any of my messages, and I think it was big of Solorio to agree to talk with you at the Truman Dinner, though I hope that you did not make him the target of your infamous name-calling when he disagreed with you because that would have been inappropriate.
Vern, As you know, I never attacked either Cook or you in a personal vein.
Several dozen Democrats, unfortunate recipients of your e-mails, Democrats with memories going back three years, are laughing at you right now. They are wiping tears from their eyes as we speak.
I hate it when people apologize profusely, and seemingly sincerely. And then a year later they pretend nothing ever happened. It’s funny how common that is.
“Big of Solorio” to talk to me? What kind of insult to me is that? He and I have talked a dozen times.
On substance… Hey, if you like this bill so much are you gonna call Jose? Or are you just gonna keep pretending this is one of your philosophy classes and real people’s lives are not slowly going down the drain while we chatter?
And your defense of / opposition to the felony murder / felony robbery rules is irretrievably confused. The half of you that says it’s wrong is correct.
Who is Richard Lara, and why is he so pompous?
And why can’t people follow simple logic that can divide a class into multiple sets.
See, there are juveniles given sentences of Life Without Parole.
One was a girl who was groomed from age 11 to be a prostitute, and turned out when she was 13 when her pimp raped her then turned her into a sex slave. She murdered him when she was 16. But she was not a white girl with a name like Meghan or Amber or Chelsea, so she had no victim’s rights group lobbying for her.
Some are caught up in California’s rigid sentencing laws and convicted as teenagers for being gang members who were present when a murder was committed.
Some are vicious sociopaths.
The vicious sociopaths won’t be eligible for clemency.
I know this is really tough logic for some people to follow, and Solorio obviously can’t make the connection. He’s just a coward with no real strong principles. That’s why we lost the County Fairground, and why he disappoints education leaders, labor leaders, yet remains a darling of Orange County Democrats.
The tough on crime people would rather piss away our money to avoid confrontation rather than try to fix our broken criminal justice cartel.
Oooh, snap! See, I’m not that mean. I always hope for the best from our Assemblyman. Maybe I’m the voice of reason between Richard Lara’s obseqiousness and “Mayor Quimby’s” righteous fury.
Never mind that anyone with any sense would know how dangerous armed robbery is, Vern thinks their depravity should be rewarded by not holding them responsible for helping the killing take place. In short, Vern, the voice of reason, thinks that if you choose to participate in a life-endangering felony but don’t plan or expect that anyone will be killed, then you should not be charged with murder if someone is killed.
Sure, Dick. Right, Dick. 15 years or so in prison is “rewarding” these kids. In your Aristotelean handbooks of logical fallacies, do they include the term “strawman argument?”
Vern, you would be more credible if you were to make up your mind as to whether you are the voice of reason or a misologist, but if you did, you would be far less entertaining. How ironic!
I think that my work here is done now that you are backing into a more sensible position by agreeing that defendants who participate in felonies that result in someone’s death should be subject to a murder charges and severe punishments even if their conduct is not the immediate cause of death. I will leave it to you to learn the correct application of the straw man fallacy, though you really ought to begin with the argument ad hominem fallacy because you use it a lot: “Or are you just gonna keep pretending this is one of your philosophy classes and real people’s lives are not slowly going down the drain while we chatter?” Your reasoning goes like this: “Richard has a background in philosophy. So his thinking is logical (which in Vern’s mind synonymous with unrealistic and irrelevant), and we can therefore disregard everything he says.” If this line of “reasoning” was logical, it would be more far more damming for musicians like yourself than for people who have studied philosophy, science, or any of the other rational disciplines. In other words, it is lucky for you that you don’t make much sense. Hey, more irony!
Your work is done. Wonderful. And so is Jose’s evidently. The bill dies and these kids all stay in prison for the rest of their lives. Even if their misdeeds done at 16 or 17 were as innocuous as we have described. Great. Are you happy? Did you actually try to do anything about this, or just argue with Vern?
I keep biting my tongue as I look back at this thread, not wanting to keep it going pettily. I hope everybody sees how little sense Dr. Richard Lara made in this whole exchange. If so, we’ll drop it.
I think Nelson should followed his instincts and just continued bitting his tongue. He STILL fails to grasp why these kids are in prison. Nelson says: “… many of these kids – 45% it looks like – weren’t doing anything horrible at all, they were hanging with the wrong crowd and something went awry.” The law does not work that way.
In order to be convicted of a crime for which the sentence is life, like murder, the defendant must be both present at the commission of AND participating in an inherently dangerous felony that results in someone’s death. The reason a person is convicted in this way is because he or she chose to participate in a felony the commission of which involved gambling with other people’s lives. In short, the defendant gambled with innocent life, and someone died as a result, and THAT is why they were sentenced to life in prison. The defendant’s own conduct may not have been the immediate cause of the death, but the court still hold’s him accountable because he committed a dangerous felony that resulted in the death. However, the law does not allow a defendant to be convicted for a murder where the death is incidental to the defendant’s conduct.
Ultimately, the motive behind the law is the Bill of Rights, which says that we each have the right to life, which, in turn, entails that no one has the right to gamble with another person’s life.
The law that Vern is having trouble understand is explained in the following Loyola Law Review Article:
“… [A]lthough a first-degree felony-murder conviction does not require a strict causal relationship between the felony and the killing, the killing CANNOT BE MERELY INCIDENTAL. […] The courts have held that the first-degree felony-murder doctrine applies ONLY IF the defendant formed the requisite intent to commit
the underlying felony before or during the killing.
The felony murder rule is triggered when a killing is committed in perpetration of
certain felonies, and it “operates to posit the existence of that crucial mental state [for murder]. Specifically, the felony-murder doctrine replaces the first-degree murder requirement of purpose to kill and premeditation. For second-degree murder, it replaces the requirement of express purpose to kill without premeditation or provocation, or the proof of recklessness under the implied malice murder doctrine. Moreover, the felony-murder doctrine renders irrelevant whether the killing was intentional or accidental.
Under the felony-murder doctrine, a killing, whether intentional or unintentional, is murder if committed in the perpetration of certain felonies.
The second-degree felony-murder doctrine only applies to felonies that are inherently dangerous to human life. A felony is deemed to be inherently dangerous to human life when, viewed in the abstract and not to the particular circumstances of a case, there is a high probability that it will result in death.” (FELONY-MURDER, Loyola Law Review, Summer 2003)
Thus, it is not true that, as Vern wrongly thinks, “many of these kids – 45% it looks like – weren’t doing anything horrible at all, they were hanging with the wrong crowd and something went awry. On the contrary, they were doing something horrible, namely gambling with the lives of innocent people by playing an active role in an inherently dangerous felony. If the defendant intended to commit the dangerous felony, then the court holds him accountable for this decision if someone dies during the commission of that felony. Thus, the defendant is on the hook for murder even though the defendant was not the one who actually did the killing. “Why?,” you ask. Because the defendant does not have the right to gamble with innocent life by participating in inherently dangerous felonies – though Vern seems to think that he does because he thinks that the defendants in question were not doing anything horrible when they were willingly engaged in inherently dangerous felonies. If the defendant does gamble with innocent life and if someone does die, then the court treats his gamble as satisfying the intent requirement for murder, which can carry a sentence of life in prison. Most people would consider this a fair outcome given that the defendant never had the right to gamble with innocent life in the first place.
The fact that very young people are serving life sentences in prison is tragic beyond words, but their sentences are not, as Vern imagines, based merely on their hanging out with the wrong crowd. Besides, most convicted criminals could argue that they are in jail because they were hanging out with the wrong crowd. Furthermore, the law is designed to discourage people from hanging out with the wrong crowd or from doing anything that might lead them to be involved in criminal acts.
Obviously, the Democrat controlled State Senate decided that there were too many problems with SB 399. It may come as a shock to Vern, but it is possible that the Senators are right and that Vern is wrong. The Senate probably realized that given the way the bill was worded, it would have created more problems than it solved. Perhaps they thought that a more carefully crafted bill could give youth sentenced to life a chance to have their sentences reduced without creating problems like opening the door to an immaturity defense that would be available to defendant’s over 18 years of age.
In any event, in addition to drafting a better version of SB 399, we need to create more opportunities for young people to make good choices, and we need to reduce the influence of those forces and conditions – poverty, gangs, communities overrun with crime, substandard schools, lack of after school programs, etc. – that lead young people to make the wrong choices. Again, it is tragic to see young lives being frittered away behind bars, and youth offenders do deserve different consideration than adult offenders. However, our FOCUS should be on helping youth make the right choices rather than on protecting them from their own wrong choices; for if we focus too much on protecting them from their wrong choices, we will thereby only be making it easier for them to make the wrong choices.