Source: sfchronicle.com 8/29/24
Prisoners serving life terms for violent sex crimes committed between ages 18 and 25 are not entitled to a parole hearing after 25 years, even though such hearings are available for some convicted murderers, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
The so-called one-strike sentences, approved by the California voters in 2006 and expanded by the Legislature in 2010, made violent sex offenders ineligible for early parole hearings because of the seriousness of their crimes and the danger they could pose after release, the court said.
Lawmakers reasonably concluded that their “risk of recidivism is high, that rehabilitation is unlikely, and therefore these offenders would not likely be eligible for parole, much less early parole,” Justice Martin Jenkins wrote in the 6-1 ruling.
Read the decision:
People v. Williams - 2024 - One Strike Juvenile Case
And I thought California was progressive.
It always seems to be one step forward and two steps back just when you thought you seen it all. This is absolutely ridiculous. You can kill a human being but God forbid if you have sex with them.
A public defender back in 2017 told me California is one of hardest states to be on the registry in and he wasn’t lying.
There ain’t no green grass over here if your from out of state thinking about moving out here because the registry laws are more relaxed, in the words of Kamala “Don’t come” 😎
Without looking at the case file proper, you just have to wonder if the proper data was submitted and was even seriously considered if so
This decision is troubling in so many ways. One of those ways is the court’s reliance upon statements made in legislative reports that are not supported by empirical evidence. In addition, the decision cites statements made in a ballot initiative for Jessica’s Law which for all intents and purposes was overturned by the CA Supreme Court. But no mention of that. Interesting. I do see one bright light in the decision in the form of the dissent by Justice Liu who identified several sources debunking those statements. His dissent includes many statements that we can and should use in future litigation.