« "A Biblical Value in the Constitution: Mercy, Clemency, Faith, and History" | Main | Recent commentary on this election season's criminal justice initiatives »

September 23, 2012

Newt Gingrich urging Gov Jerry Brown to sign law to allow resentencings for juve LWOP in California

I am pleased and intrigued to see that Newt Gingrich, now that he is off the Presidential campaign trail, is back to his "Right on Crime" advocacy for a more sensible and softer sentencing system.  In this op-ed written with Pat Nolan, he urges Governor Jerry Brown to sign California's Senate Bill 9 ("The Fair Sentencing for Youth Act"), which authorizes resentencing opportunities for juveniles sentenced to life imprisonment without parole.  Here are excerpts from the potent op-ed:

We did some dumb things as teenagers that might have caused a lot of harm.  You probably did, too.  Fortunately, we didn’t hurt anyone too badly, but we cringe now at how clueless we were about the possible consequences of what we did.

Teenagers often don’t make very good decisions.  Our laws take this into account in many ways: We don’t let young people drink until they are 21, and they can’t sign contracts, vote or serve on juries until they are 18.

But there is one area in which we ignore teens’ youth and impulsiveness: our criminal laws. Our laws often ignore the difference between adults and teens, and some youngsters are sentenced to life in prison without parole (LWOP).  Despite urban legends to the contrary, this law has no exceptions: A teen sentenced to LWOP will die in prison as an old man or woman. No exceptions for good behavior, no exceptions period.  No hope.

You might expect that these LWOP sentences are limited to the “worst of the worst,” but that is not the case. A young teen can be a bit player in a crime, e.g., act as a lookout while his buddies go in to steal beer from a convenience store....  About 45 percent of the inmates serving LWOP for a teenage crime were not the person who caused the death.  Yet they will die in prison of old age, with no chance for release.

But should these youngsters die in prison for something they did when they were so young? Wouldn’t it be better to re-evaluate them after serving a long stretch in prison and consider whether they have matured and improved themselves?

We are conservative Republicans, and we believe that some people are so dangerous that we must separate them from our communities.  That is what prisons are for.  But sometimes we overuse our institutions.  California’s teen LWOP is an overuse of incarceration.  It denies the reality that young people often change for the better.  And it denies hope to those sentenced under it.

Of course, not every young person going through the system turns his or her life around. But wouldn’t it be better to at least consider whether these inmates have matured and improved themselves after a long stretch in prison?  SB 9, which is now on Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk, would allow the court to give this narrow group of inmates convicted of a crime while a teen a chance to apply for parole -- after serving 25 years in prison. That is no “easy stretch.”

And even then, they will not be automatically released.  They must show the parole board that they have participated in programs that prepare them to support themselves and stay on the straight and narrow when they are released.  They must convince the parole board that they are remorseful and have changed so they no longer pose a threat to the community.  Only then might they be given a parole date.

Jesus told us to “Do unto others” as we would have them do unto us.  Shouldn’t we give the kids and grandkids of others the same second chances that we would want for our own families?

An inherent principle of justice is that the punishment should never exceed the harm done by the crime. It is wrong to condemn these inmates to die in prison for being the teenage accomplice to the terrible acts of another.  We urge Gov. Brown to sign SB 9, and thereby restore the chance for these inmates to transform their lives and become good citizens.

This new article from the Los Angeles Times, headlined "Political lines drawn on life sentences for teen killers," reports on some of the others coming out for and against this intriguing legislation:

In a letter to the governor, [Nancy] Pelosi contended that "civilized societies are increasingly prohibiting life-without-parole sentences for juveniles, recognizing that juveniles do not possess the same mental development as adults.”

Brown is hearing plenty from the other side as well. California Assembly Republican leader Connie Conway earlier this month sent the governor a letter seeking veto of the "unnecessary" bill. "California already has a carefully balanced statutory scheme that appropriately balances the need to hold the most serious juvenile murderers accountable for their crimes, while recognizing different levels of maturity and culpability based on the age of the offender, and retains judicial discretion," she wrote.

Indeed, some victim advocates contend that because judges already rejected the possibility of allowing eventual parole for the state's 309 inmates sentenced as minors, there is no reason to revisit the issue. They have political support from lobbyists for prison guards and prosecutors.

The battle lines are not universally inclusive. Mothers Against Murder, for instance, has refused to take an official stance on the bill even though its membership includes families of those killed by juveniles. "We tend not to take a stand due to our respect for different families' wishes," said Executive Director Margaret Petros.

Related recent posts:

September 23, 2012 at 11:04 AM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e2017d3c42456d970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Newt Gingrich urging Gov Jerry Brown to sign law to allow resentencings for juve LWOP in California:

Comments

Anyone advocating releasing violent criminals should be forced to provide their home address. We then seize a nearby residence under Kelo, and open a halfway house for the released violent criminals. Up to eight can be housed at a time without zoning board approval.

As to lookouts getting life in prison, I strongly support the felony murder rule. It does serves its intended purpose, after a re-analyis of studies showing it does not. OW Holmes has never been wrong. He supported it.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Sep 23, 2012 11:51:56 AM

Brown can do one better. Instead of wastIng million of dollars in lawyers and psychologists he could use the power he already has: executive clemency.

Posted by: David | Sep 23, 2012 2:46:38 PM

some one should do something for young people.They are ruining peoples lives.

Posted by: christie andersen | Sep 23, 2012 3:42:11 PM

//Anyone advocating releasing violent criminals should be forced to provide their home address. We then seize a nearby residence under Kelo, and open a halfway house for the released violent criminals. Up to eight can be housed at a time without zoning board approval.\\

Newt Gingrich,
Nancy Pelosi,
Pat Nolan,
Jerry Brown,
David ______,
Christine Andersen (if that's his/her real name)
NIMBY
Lawyer du jour
probably won't get those LWOPs in their neighbourhoods, so they're all in.

Posted by: Adamakis | Sep 24, 2012 1:37:55 PM

Adamakis: I am actually vehemently opposed to SB 9 because it sentences the victims' families to endless resentencing hearings. I simply wanted to make the point that if anyone should be released, Brown doesn't need to sign SB 9, he can commute the sentence. It would be cheaper and more direct.

Posted by: David | Sep 24, 2012 9:34:27 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB