State Sen. Dave Cortese announced the introduction of a bill that would eliminate a mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole for people convicted of a murder charge with special circumstances who did not commit the murder themselves.
Under current state law, the mandatory sentence for murders with “special circumstances” such as occurring during a robbery or burglary or other crime, is death or life in prison without the possibility of parole even if the person was an accomplice who did not kill anyone or intend to do so.
Cortese’s Senate Bill 300 will give judges the ability to decide whether the special circumstance allegation should be found true for sentencing purposes, which would decide whether the person would be eligible for parole.
“Sentencing someone to die in prison by death penalty or without parole, is virtually unheard of in much of the world. California not only regularly imposes these sentences but requires judges to impose life without the possibility of parole for certain categories of offenses even on defendants who did not kill or intend a person to be killed,” Cortese said.
SB 300 will also provide an avenue for currently incarcerated people to petition the court for resentencing, offering recourse to hundreds of Californians currently awaiting execution or condemned to die in prison.
Cortese said they will have the opportunity to be resentenced and the possibility to earn parole through rehabilitative programming, work, and good behavior.
SB 300 will require a two-thirds vote in both the state Assembly and Senate and be signed by the governor to go into effect.
I’ll vote NO.
Cool crime will now go up, as the deterrent will be less punishment.
It doesn’t matter if they actually do the murder, and get convicted of murder with special circumstances. They will still be released after being convicted for life without possibility of parole. If you’re under age 26, you are not held accountable for your action.
Cold blooded killers need never get out of prison until the person they killed can walk the earth again. What’s the point? Same for the accomplice.
I’ll VOTE YES
So will our Governor.
He prefers the rights of criminals over their victims also.
There have been 13 executions in California since 1972. The most recent was in 2006.
Murder for hire is a completely different law. This law states that if a person dies during the commission of a felony, everybody involved in that crime is guilty of first degree murder, even if they didn’t know a murder took place. In other words, if you and your friend decide to rob a liquor store, and you are outside sitting in the car while your friend is robbing the store and he kills the clerk, you would also be charged with first degree murder. Even though you had nothing to do with the murder. You may not have even known he killed the clerk until you heard it on the news.
In for a penny, in for a pound.
The two in your example entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit a felony. They thought about it, they planned it and then they executed the crime. At any point prior to actually committing the crime they could have stopped and none would have been the wiser.
When committing a crime there is always the potential for violence, even death. Any reasonable and prudent person, especially someone who is criminally sophisticated enough to voluntarily enter into a criminal enterprise would know that is a real risk of their plan.
You share in the conspiracy (planning) you share in the profit and you can share the punishment.
Your scenario would seem to be a good deterrent to being a criminal a**hat, or hanging out with criminal a**hats.
Janus, OK let’s change it a little, what if you didn’t realize your friend was robbing the store? You only thought he went in to buy a pack of cigarettes. He comes out, gets into the car and says “let’s go.” You have no idea he just robbed the store and killed the clerk. Are you just as guilty as he is?
Well it depends.
If your “buddy” out of the blue says pull over I need some smokes from the local stop and rob. He goes in and casually walks out after having just robbing and murdered the store clerk. He says nothing to you, and you suspect nothing is amiss. No criminal conspiracy, no criminal liability for you. There was no intent on your part.
Exact same scenario expect you hear a gunshot followed by a blood curdling scream from inside the store. Your buddy comes running out with a smoking gun in his hands. He jumps into the car and tells you to floor it and you drive him away from the scene. A reasonable and prudent person would conclude your buddy just committed a crime.
Even though you did not discuss the robber before hand, you would be criminally culpable because you facilitated his escape. You would not be the principle nor would you be subject to the felony murder rule because there was no conspiracy but you would be an accessory after the fact.
Same scenario but after you dropped off your Buddy you make a bee line for the nearest police station or you call 9-1-1 and you tell them, I knew something was up but I was afraid my “buddy” might shoot me too so I drove him away and oh by the way, I dropped him off at this address, he is still armed and you tell the police everything he told you. You would not be the principle nor would you accessory. Yes, you help him escape but you were afraid for your life if you did not. No criminal intent like the 2nd scenario. You would have no criminal culpability in this scenario.
Bottom line. No conspiracy – no felony murder rule but you could still be an accessory after the fact.
POST DELETED
Please Note: Users who use multiple names will be deleted. Please choose one name so others can easily chat with you
Why does it seem that every bill introduced in this state is intended to reduce punishment for criminals? What’s the ultimate goal here?
And we do plenty of things in this country that are unheard of in much of the world. That’s part of what makes this country great. If I wanted to live in “much of the world”, I’d move there.
Dawg; Thanks for your explanation. This is one reason why I would vote yes. The judge would be able to asset and determine a just sentance.
Be careful what you wish for… offering judges too much discretion in asserting a “just sentence” can lead to absurd results when there are no statutory guidelines.
See: Stanford rape case
iKrissy
So the State of California should never have convicted Charles Mason of murder since he never actually took part in the 7 murders, only planned them?
I’m sure you agree that the Judge who used his own judgement and gave Brock Allen Turner 6 months county and probation for rape of an unconscious woman was correct in his sentencing assessment. That has to be the correct ruling since the Judge assessed and gave him a just sentenced him. Right?
Improving the quality of life for criminals at the expense of non-criminals. The voters wanted every bit of this.
I don’t know about the rest of the politicians in this state, but I would hope they might focus on criminals with 2 or more open Felony cases that are out on the streets vicitimizing innocent people. There seems to be this never ending appeal to the voters that incarceration is wrong and criminals should have multiple chances.
What many have never realized and liberals can’t grasp,
threat of incarceration is deterrence of criminal behavior.
As proof look no further than the shopping without dollars mobs that descended upon Walnut Creek who were allowed to loot.
Walnut Creek now has reputation of being easy that will be hard to correct.
Made even more difficult by current DA.
When DEMs next anoint their next Felon martyr, next election cycle, can probably expect WC to be hit by the shopping without dollars club.
I don’t know why we even bother to arrest and prosecute alleged criminals anymore.
We’ll at the point of “what difference does it make”
When the people can not depend on our elective officials for justice , they will dispense justice themselves . Vigilantism is a scary road to take but people can be pushed only so far until they feel there is no where else to turn for justice .Liberal politicians should be held responsible for the damage they cause.
Those introducing and passing these laws live in homes surrounded by six to ten foot walls, send their children to private schools, have private security upon request, have access to private clubs or areas of private clubs for socializing, workouts, dining out, and so forth, and a host of attendants at their beck and call who do their grocery shopping, drive them here and there, fix their meals, etc. The likelihood any one of them would come in contact with any one of the people they are “excusing” for criminal behavior is very small. They simply have little need to worry about the consequences of their actions, and their personal security is not put in jeopardy by those actions. Just tough luck for the rest of us!
California, a criminals sanctuary
only a democrat would reduce the penalty for worst crime possible, next they’ll do the same for pedophiles… oh wait senator weiner already did
https://tinyurl.com/1qrft59p
Lol.
“But I was just the driver. I didn’t know they were going to rape, torture and murder those children.”