Facing staunch opposition from family members of victims, law enforcement groups, and Republican lawmakers, a bill that would allow for resentencing of inmates convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death passed the Assembly Public Safety Committee June 27 on a partisan vote.
Introduced with the intention of allowing a path for release for elderly inmates some believe to no longer be a risk to society, supporters of the bill say that imprisoning people for decades lacks humanity, with the bill intended to alleviate such concerns.
But some law enforcement representatives adamantly opposed the legislation, citing significant costs to the state, potential harm to family members, and risk to communities if the bill is approved.
“Dragging these murderers back into court will be prohibitively expensive, tie up judicial resources, and inflict further pain upon their victims,” the San Diego Deputy District Attorneys Association argued in opposition to the bill. “By creating presumptions favoring the release of these murderers, SB 94 will create unjustifiable risks to public safety.”
The bill, introduced by Sen. Dave Cortese (D-San Jose), offers a path to release for those convicted of murder with special circumstances before 1990—also known as capital murder—a classification for offenses deemed egregious by the state’s penal code and punishable by death or life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Multiple friends and family members of murder victims lined up in opposition to the bill, with district attorneys, police departments from across the state, and sheriff’s organizations also speaking against the measure.
“The author is under some misconception about inmates aging out of violent crime,” Lauren Pettigrew—family member of a murder victim—testified in opposition to the proposal. “That is a fantasy. There is no age limit on evil.”
Ms. Pettigrew’s brother David was murdered during a home invasion robbery in 2007 by three Marines, all of whom were ultimately sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.
While the current bill would not apply to his killers, Ms. Pettigrew said she believes the bill “is a stepping stone to reversing these sentences.”
The bill under consideration does not apply to cases after 1990 because of Proposition 115, passed by California voters that year, which prohibits judges from downgrading special circumstances convictions.
Exceptions in the bill are those convicted of killing a peace officer, first-degree murder of three or more people, and murder involving certain sexual offenses. Inmates can also be excluded if it can be proven they are an “unreasonable risk of danger.”
Opponents said the exclusions are too narrow, with the committee vice chair, Assemblyman Juan Alanis (R-Modesto)—a recently retired law enforcement officer—arguing that all lost lives are equal.
“What about the victims’ families? Are they not as good as a police officer that was killed?” Mr. Alanis asked the bill’s author.
Concern was also raised about the burden placed on victims’ families as many never register to be notified about parole board hearings.
According to a spokesperson for the district attorney’s association, testifying in opposition to the bill at the hearing, such notifications would not be automatic, due to the sheer quantity of possible cases.
As currently written, if families do not request to be notified, they will never know that the individual responsible for harming their loved one could be granted a parole hearing, and without victim impact statements and opposition testimony, those close to the issue say inmates have a better chance of being released.
“I see this as revictimizing the families with our system,” Mr. Alanis said. “I think it would only be fair that in the bill there is something written that you have to make some kind of intent to seek out and notify these victims.”
Supporters of the bill were adamant that if passed, the law would require many steps, including petitioning a judge for the inmate’s parole hearing and rehabilitation, with potential parolees subject to the same prerequisite credit programs and administrative review that all inmates face before becoming eligible for parole.
Opponents argued that victims should be prioritized over criminals.
“We hear a lot about the talk of change, and it refers only to offenders because it dismisses victim consideration,” Assemblyman Tom Lackey (R-Palmdale) told the committee. “What hasn’t changed, and doesn’t have the ability to change, is the finality of many of these offenses, including death. I find this to be an imbalance in our consideration, and I think it’s unfair.”
As a lawmaker with an extensive background in law enforcement including a 28-year career with the California Highway Patrol, Mr. Lackey reiterated his disapproval and urged his colleagues to think about the victims when voting.
“This is extreme, we’re talking about life without the possibility of parole. That was the sentence,” he said. “What’s changed in the victim’s world? I’ll say very little, especially if they are no longer alive.”
In response to concerns, author Mr. Cortese assured critics that rather than releasing the inmates immediately, the process would be lengthy and unsuccessful for many that petition, saying an inmate’s release would be a “rare circumstance.”
“No one is judging that anyone should be released. No one is judging that these heinous and horrible circumstances shouldn’t be considered,” he said.
While the measure passed the Assembly’s Public Safety Committee, it did so after passing the Senate floor 22–12 with opposition from both sides of the aisle. The bill will now be considered by the Assembly Appropriations Committee and ultimately, if it passes there it will be heard on the Assembly floor.
With a lengthy line of people rising to voice their concerns at the hearing, one lawmaker noted that given the consequences—with murderers potentially being released back into society—once more people become aware of the legislation, the crowd is likely to swell in size.
“If more people knew about this, they would be flooding the hallways in opposition,” Mr. Alanis, the committee vice chair, told his colleagues.
