Handcuffed Male Prisoner. (Photo: Gorodenkoff/Shutterstock)
California Democrats Plan to Release ‘Worst-of-the-Worst’ Murderers After 25 Years
‘SB 94 would break the promise made to victims that society would never see these criminals on our streets again’
By Katy Grimes, August 26, 2024 7:16 am
One of the worst anti-victim, soft-on-crime bills looks as if it will be passed by the California Legislature under the guise of criminal justice “reforms.”
Senate Bill 94, which was shelved last year, would allow prison inmates sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole (LWOP) before June 5, 1990, and has served at least 25 years in custody, to seek a recall of their sentence and be resentenced to a lesser sentence.
Last week, SB 94 was reactivated for an Assembly floor vote, the Globe reported. The move caught many off guard, but also quickly reunited opposing groups once again. This included Senate GOP leadership, which released a 14 page analysis of the bill, and showed just how dangerous the bill is.
Why would any state lawmaker, sworn to uphold the California and United States Constitutions, support this lawlessness as Democrats in the California Legislature are?
According to Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, co-sponsor of the bill, “There are people languishing in state prisons that if they were in court today, would receive a more just sentence.”
No word from the murdered victims’ families.
Tulare County District Attorney Tim Ward told the Globe told the Globe last year that this bill is a “travesty to victims’ families.” Ward said victims and their families are told that life without parole means “no leniency, and especially in a death sentence.” But this bill completely undermines “no leniency.”
Senate Bill 94 would allow an individual serving a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole due to special circumstance murder to petition the court to recall the sentence and re-sentence to a lesser sentence if:
• the offense occurred before June 5, 1990
• they served at least 25 years in custody
What could prevent an inmate is not eligible for recall and resentencing?
a) The individual was convicted of first degree murder of a peace officer engaged in performance of their duties or of a peace officer or former peace officer in retaliation for the performance of their official duties;
b) The individual was convicted of first-degree murder as the actual killer of three or more people; or
c) The individual was convicted of a registerable sex offense, or the facts of the offense for which the petitioner is serving a sentence of LWOP as reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the individual involved the commission of a registerable sex offense.
According to Sen. Cortese:
“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 – 88% of people serving life without parole have been assessed with the lowest risk score on that scale. Research also conclusively demonstrates that there is little risk for elderly individuals to re-offend or recidivate upon release. For individuals previously sentenced to life without parole who were granted a commutation and released, the recidivism rate is zero percent. Based on CDCR data, an analysis from the Special Circumstances Conviction Project of UCLA Center for the Study of Women, estimates that this reform might qualify 600 LWOP cases for review. These cases represent a very narrow population that consists of the most elderly individuals behind bars. Many of these individuals have shown decades of exemplary behavior, participated in extensive positive programming and have devoted themselves to becoming positive members of society. This bill does not automatically let anyone out of prison. It does not guarantee resentencing. This bill simply creates a process for the judicial review of cases that have not been looked at in decades.”
SB 94 allows a judge the authority to resentence life-without-parole murderers 25-to-life, which under this bill, makes them eligible for parole having already served at least 25 years in prison.
DA Ward said that SB 94 is “another unfunded mandate,” with no additional funding for county DAs and prosecutors. Ward said these murderers will come back into court which will be expensive, and cost prosecutors additional time and funding, for cases they long ago tried and prosecuted for murderers they thought were sentenced to life in prison.
Ward also warned that the bill says “we as prosecutors no longer can write our own conditions.” The prosecutor decides which crimes to charge, not the judge.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom has been letting convicted felons out of prison for the last few years claiming overcrowding – 76,000 to be specific, according to his executive order authorizing the CDCR to bypass parole or speed up letting felons out.
The California Governor works harder to infringe on the constitutional rights of legal gun owners, while letting felons out of prison early.
“According to a 2022 estimate by the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the average annual cost to incarcerate one person in state prison is $106,000. People eligible for resentencing under this bill are sentenced to LWOP; without resentencing, they will likely remain in prison until they die. Incarceration costs for elderly and infirm inmates tend to be higher than incarceration costs for other inmates. To the extent this bill ultimately results in release of incarcerated people on parole, rather than continued incarceration for the rest of their lives, CDCR will experience significant cost savings, potentially in the millions to tens of millions of dollars,” Assembly Floor Analysis reports.
Those now ineligible under SB 94 are:
- The individual was convicted of first degree murder of a peace officer;
- b) The individual was convicted of first-degree murder as the actual killer of three or more people; or
- c) The individual was convicted of a sexual offense – rape, sodomy, lewd and lascivious acts on a child under 14 years of age, rape by instrument; and oral copulation – committed in conjunction with the homicide for which the petitioner is serving an LWOP sentence.
“The beneficiaries of this measure, if passed, will be criminals convicted of first-degree murder with special circumstances,” Michael Rushford of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation wrote at the Globe. wrote. “These are murderers who killed multiple victims or killed in concert with a rape, robbery, kidnapping or torture.”
Even the Public Policy Institute of California has reported on the recent dramatic increase in homicides and crimes with guns in the state, which included a troubling rise of homicides.
Assemblyman Bill Essayli (R-Corona) said at a press conference Thursday, speaking out against SB 94, “I am disgusted by the actions of radical Democrats in our state legislature who have chosen to resurrect one of last year’s most egregious ‘public safety’ bills, SB 94. This disastrous proposal would allow the most vicious murderers to be released from prison. SB 94 would break the promise made to victims that society would never see these criminals on our streets again. Under this proposal criminals like Scott Peterson who viciously murdered his wife and unborn child would be eligible for early release. Californians are sick of Democrats’ soft on crime agenda in Sacramento and we must reject SB 94.”
- Voters Hand Gov. Newsom First Statewide Minimum Wage Ballot Failure in California History - November 20, 2024
- Regulatory Framework Guide Published - November 19, 2024
- Post-Trump Presidential Win, Discerning Truth from Propaganda in ‘FAKE NEWS’ - November 19, 2024
RELATED ARTICLES
-
-
February 16, 2024
-
WHY is the mega-majority Democrat legislature so intent on slapping Californians in the face?
Voting NO on SB 94 is the only option. And why isn’t that the easiest call ever? Do Democrat legislators NOT UNDERSTAND anything about justice for victims and their families? Plus do they NOT UNDERSTAND what the mood of the public is? Can they really not see that the public is beyond fed up and has had enough of skyrocketing crime and a constant fear of being preyed upon? Whether they are outside or INSIDE of their homes? Do lawmakers NOT UNDERSTAND their duty is to keep the public safe — as best they can — from such predators? Who after all were sentenced with much deliberation to Life Without the Possibility of Parole? Which is a promise that must be kept not only for victims and victim families but also a promise that must be kept for all Californians?
I do not understand is why SB 94 was brought back at all.
It makes NO SENSE.
Assembly.ca.gov/assemblymembers
Senate.ca.gov/senators
NO on SB 94.
…. And by the way, 50 years of age is considered “elderly” according to SB 94. On what planet would 50 years of age be considered ELDERLY? These days it’s the prime of life. Think of that.
Here is the most recent example of someone who could be released under SB 94. Is this the sort of horrendous predator you want released from prison, free to do whatever he wants? Never mind the promise made to victims, victims’ families, and the citizens of California for a carefully deliberated sentence to be carried out. Apart from the practical considerations justice must be done as the consequence of such a horrific crime:
“Convicted Kidnapper, Pedophile Could Be Released from Life Sentence Under California Law”
https://www.breitbart.com/crime/2024/08/25/convicted-kidnapper-pedophile-could-released-from-life-sentence-under-california-law/
SB 94, as originally written, would have allowed the so-called Golden State Killer and others as monstrous to be eligible for release. If you have the stomach for it, please take a look at this article from this October 2020 ABCNews report.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/inside-timeline-crimes-golden-state-killer/story?id=54744307
Excerpt:
“[Victim] Carson-Sandler said that now, decades later, scars from her attack remain. Seeing a ski mask or hearing someone yell ‘shut up’ will ‘forever cause me anxiety,’ she said.
‘My comfort at those times is remembering that you are finally going to prison and will remain there until you die,’ she said.”
This illustrates the inexplicable mindset of Democrat legislators in Sacramento —- who began with an idea they might actually consider releasing the GOLDEN STATE KILLER, for God’s sake —- who are charged with looking after the safety of the citizenry. Why on earth are they apparently bound and determined to do the OPPOSITE? Would any of these politicians care to explain to Californians why this outrage is just fine with them?
DA Ward in an interview last year, said if SB 94 was passed, it would mean the possible release of the following inmates, among others:
Michael Allen Hamilton: Murdered wife with a shotgun in 1981. Sentenced to death in 1982, appealed. Currently serving life without the possibility of parole.
Ryan Michael Marshall: Sentenced to death in 1986 for 1985 execution style murder of 58-year-old woman during home invasion. Currently serving life without the possibility of parole.
Joseph James DeAngelo: Murdered 13 people in California in 70’s and 80’s, including Professor Claude Snelling in Visalia. Known as the Golden State Killer. Currently serving multiple life without parole sentences.
Steven Walter Gomez: Murder with special circumstances for 1985 Visalia murder and sexual assault of woman. Conviction result of cold case DNA hit. Currently serving life without parole.
When this devastating information was provided to the Legislature in May, DA Ward said they “watered SB 94 down so it’s not so aggressive” through amendments.
Which shows us that the specter of public shaming —- or at least not being re-elected, and this IS an election year, after all — works. Those who remain on the eligible-for-parole list are all doing life without parole for particular heinous crimes of all kinds. But if the list were only composed of child kidnapper rapists that would be enough. Why on earth, once you’ve put an animal like that in prison for life who was bent on — without conscience — kidnapping and raping and filming a helpless and innocent 5 year old, would anyone for one moment consider letting him out under any circumstances? Everyone knows that, barring, say, a rare and miraculous come-to-Jesus transformation, this crime in particular is un-reformable, not subject to rehabilitation; we have example after example after example of ACTUAL ELDERLY men — those in their 70s and even 80s — continuing in their quest of prolific and violent pedophilia. But the list of those who would be eligible have committed horrendous crimes of all kinds, the very thought of which are enough to keep the average person up at night.
Who, besides the legislators who back SB 94, our sociopath of a governor (who recently admitted himself that San Quentin is on a SWEET piece of real estate, thus explaining why he sought to close it), the criminals themselves who could benefit, and delusional leftist old ladies with a horribly misplaced sense of “compassion,” actually supports this bill, SB 94? One would search long and hard to find such a person, or group.
Of course, there are the Soros-backed leftist groups, apparently bent on societal anarchy, that you, Katy, revealed in your reporting. Thus, presumably, lots-o-cash is being funneled into the SB 94 politician backers’ campaign coffers, and we have to sadly conclude this is the main motivator for their support of this bill.
All great questions,Show.
I think it is because they feel that they are insulated from these people ever coming in contact with them and their families.
We have seen the DIRECT connection between the mass release of inmates and the level of violence of street crimes over the last few years of
Old ‘Cut ‘Em Loose’ ,the Noose Newsom.
So true, Mary.
This legislation brought to you by the California Bar Association and should be renamed the “Full Employment for Life by California Attorneys” bill…
Think the courts are tied up NOW???
Just think of the chaos as these trials are endlessly re-tried while a percentage of the worst of the worst are released back into society…
And what, pray tell, is so magical about the date of June 5, 1990???
What sets that particular date as the litmus test for this legislation???
Very, very strange in all manners of rational thought, which seems to be in shorter, and shorter supply in Sacramento, these days…
Thank God that there was enough pushback on this bill for the author to make it inactive again. My question is why isn’t it dumped altogether? Will it be brought forward year after year until it is passed in some underhanded way? That’s how they made euthanasia and/ or medically assisted suicide legal in California. I’m so sick of Newsom and his buddies in the legislature. I just want sanity back in charge!
I know, Erin, I’m with you, why isn’t it dead? Also hoping for sanity to return, fingers crossed.