Teens and "life without parole"

[jeb8757]

DR there was no plea agreement offered to my knowledge. This was a pretty cut and dry application of the gotcha "felony murder rule" so there was none necessary. There was public defender involved so it was advantage prosecution all the way.

There was an attempted plea agreement with the actual killer (sentence reduction), but was that was later reneged and he changed his testimony during the trial. The most damaging thing in the case was her going to Mexico.

 

[Raze]

In 1989 I was on a grand jury. There was a 15 year old boy named Randy Dobbs. One day this boy skipped school and he phoned in an order for three pizzas with everything on them. The pizza delivery person was a 20 year old married woman with a 7 month old baby boy. She came to the door and he shot her through the window glass on the front door. He shot her with .357 magnum revolver through her head. Her brains were scattered matter on his parents porch.

His motive was he wanted a joyride in her van. He had tentative plans to drive around in this vehilce with a friend of his robbing homes and killing everyone in these homes. His friend would have none of it and Randy drove this van to his grandmothers house and she called the police.

Ok he's arrested. If we charged him as a juvenile he would be out in perhaps three years. If we indicted him as an adult he would serve life with a chance of parole. We felt that his crime made him such a menace to society that three years in juvenile was not enough punishment so we went the adult route.

Randy had a chance for parole after 20 years incarceration but he not only was denied parole he apparently did something in prison to where he is no longer eligible for said parole.


In my opinion he should never be released. The family of the slain girl went to his parole hearing and the girls now grown son testified as to the damage done to his family by this horrible little punk who killed his mother.

During the trial Randy smiled and smarted off to the judge throughout the proceedings.

Some people would say that when you have a defective machine that kills people, you fix it.

If you can't fix it, you replace it and put it in the junkyard to be disassembled and destroyed.

Further, some people would say that the human brain is a machine.


What do you do with faulty machines that can't be fixed? Into the recycling bin.


Some would say humans that cannot be fixed should simply be destroyed.





Note: I do not necessarily agree with this.

 

[jeb8757]

Raze, your response is all very philosophical, but I do not liken human beings to machines.

I believe humans have a higher quality than a machine, something like a soul or a least a self consciousness and that all human life is worth persevering if possible. I know this is an unrealistic expectation. The human race has many lessons to learn, as do most individuals including myself. We are far from perfect machines.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

Well I believe she should been prosecuted as a minor, but since she fleed to Mexico until she was no longer a minor she gave up that consideration.

Has for my sympathy towards bad decisions made by 16 year olds. Murder, rape, assault and the aiding of these activities falls outside my ability to shrug and go "well kids will be kids.". Actions have consequences, and I believe that she should have to at minimium spend her entire life on parole...after serving a sentence.

And I know...hard life...bad neighborhood...boyfriend...being so stupid that she never thought that perhaps she shouldn't flee to a foreign country after being present at a murder. Nevertheless if we let every person with a sob story go free than all the prisons in America would be empty.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Hey ZirconBlue. I have been waiting for some one to respond with an intelligent dialog. I apologize.

Excellent. I think that you can have a good experience here if you maintain that attitude.

I do sometimes get upset with stupidity especially with something as important to me as this. And I don't like to be brow about petty useless rules.

I honestly believe that DR and luchog were trying to give you some helpful advice on navigating the forum rules. Not to browbeat you, or to be in any way condescending, but just as friendly advice.

Just so that person can maintain a level of superiority over me. I am not afraid of luchog and DR. They haven't contributed one piece of useful information to this thread.

As I said, I don't believe that's an accurate characterization. Now, I have the benefit of having some experience reading the posts of both users, but I really think they were trying to help.

Just so you know I look forward to engaging people on a level playing field.

Of course. Around here, the "level playing field" is called "evidence". It doesn't matter who you are, either you have evidence for your position, or you don't. Welcome, and good luck.

Oh, and the forum is set up not to allow links until after 15 posts, to prevent spammers. Until that time, you can post the links with extra spaces, as I believe DR suggested, and someone else will "fix" them for you. Or, you can just wait until you have 15 posts under your belt first.

 

[jeb8757]

fullflavormenthol, Elizabeth told me she had never thought she would be arrested and tried for murder. She said her father thought it was best to get her away from the immediate influence of the gang and and her boyfriend who was the murderer. Her boyfriend threatened and abused her. Her going to Mexico was her fathers decision. (I happen to believe it because what sixteen year old would have the means to do this on her on and her mother was already living there.) It is clearly the worst decision of her life (because it gave the appearance of fleeing prosecution). The damage has been done there is no undoing what happened. Fourteen years of her life have already been lost.

Our only hope is SB399. It is far from a get out of jail free card. It should not pass if it is. It would take into consideration some of the above mitigating circumstances. It will also take in to consideration the inmates rehabilitation progress while incarcerated. (Rehabilitation is something an inmate has to pursue on there own. It is not a given path in these institutions.) Input from victim's family will also be heard. We are not talking about a hardened career criminal here.


Also when you are a first generation poor working class family in America it isn't like they can say uncle Charlie is a lawyer lets get his advice on this. I realize ignorance is not an excuse I am just trying to put this thing in the perspective that I have seen of this case.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

Yeah because all of us have an "Uncle Charlie" who is a lawyer to get advice from. I mean everytime I get a speeding ticket while on my way to my mansion in the Hamptons I just phone my uncle's law firm for advice.

Again I believe life without parole is too extreme, but that shouldn't be a free pass. If so every gang member involved in a murder would be able to claim some sob story and get a free pass on the first one.

 

[jeb8757]

In that last comment I was just illustrating a point. Many people do have at least minimal access to this kind of advice. It is an advantage believe it or not. Not just in criminal matters. (And no you don't have to live in a mansion in the Hamptons and drive a Porsche to have a relative that is a lawyer).

Back on topic. To the last point I think we have some common ground. If the SB399 is what I have read it is stated to be and ALL the circumstances from the above are considered, It potentially could be a good law. I agree it has to implemented correctly. I have to put faith in the CA legislative body to do that. It's not a comfortable position to put your faith in that body, but it is all there is at the moment.

BTW I don't think I am a bleeding heart liberal. I think the three strike rule is far more fair than locking up juveniles for life with out parole. Three chances "geez" you should get it right after one chance.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

In that last comment I was just illustrating a point. Many people do have at least minimal access to this kind of advice. It is an advantage believe it or not. Not just in criminal matters. (And no you don't have to live in a mansion in the Hamptons and drive a Porsche to have a relative that is a lawyer).

Back on topic. To the last point I think we have some common ground. If the SB399 is what I have read it is stated to be and ALL the circumstances from the above are considered, It potentially could be a good law. I agree it has to implemented correctly. I have to put faith in the CA legislative body to do that. It's not a comfortable position to put your faith in that body, but it is all there is at the moment.

BTW I don't think I am a bleeding heart liberal. I think the three strike rule is far more fair than locking up juveniles for life with out parole. Three chances "geez" you should get it right after one chance.

I would put my faith in the system if after a reasonable sentence, which can be less than my original 25 to life, parole would be granted. But under the circumstances I feel that a while (perhaps a decade) of monitoring would be necessary, and reasonable amounts of community service (not so much as to forbid having a job).

So I will admit it is a difficult one, which is why my feeling goes towards the monitoring because it is the most just compromise between the desire of the victims family, the need to take in consideration the status as a minor during the commission of the crime, and the need to protect society just in case.

It can seem unfair, but if applied reasonably, there is no way it would be difficult for anyone to go without re-offending.

EDIT: I will accept that you were illustrating a point, and I apologize for my sarcasm. But...I believe issues such as upbringing and being poor should not be brought up. This is because it generally bothers those from poor and/or immigrant communities from taking such cases seriously.

 

[Darth Rotor]

DR there was no plea agreement offered to my knowledge. This was a pretty cut and dry application of the gotcha "felony murder rule" so there was none necessary. There was public defender involved so it was advantage prosecution all the way.

Thanks.

There was an attempted plea agreement with the actual killer (sentence reduction), but was that was later reneged and he changed his testimony during the trial. The most damaging thing in the case was her going to Mexico.

Understood.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

I am not from California, so I don't have a stake in this, but something similar is probably in the air in Texas.

A criticism of the proposed legislation that jeb is championing is made by a Mr Horowitz of Lafeyette CA.
Link here. http://sb399.com/images/SB_399_Comments_by_Daniel_Horowitz.pdf

Text of the bill

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0351-0400/sb_399_bill_20090505_amended_sen_v96.html

A tidbit from Horowitz critique, germane to our thread here.

At their core level the anti-LWOP stories posit a young person, without strong parental support, caught up in an adult world of poverty and crime. Without any malice, this young person goes along with older people who commit a killing. The young person is horrified at what happened but despite this, an unfeeling prosecutor charges him with special circumstances murder. A jury convicts. At sentencing, the defense attorney barely fights for his client. A cold hearted judge refuses to reduce the case to murder with the possibility of parole. Our confused and caring young man sits in prison, writing poetry, becoming the man he always wanted to be but tragically, due to the cold and heartless system, he will die in prison.

Howoritz looks to be laying it on a bit thick there.

This type of case is exceedingly rare. The myth that it occurs frequently is simply a political construct designed to drive a political debate with manufactured anecdotes. (An analysis of the HRW report and its errors is included with this document) There are numerous legal barriers and discretionary checks and balances which all but eliminate
these injustices.

However, if such injustices do exist, even in very small numbers, there is likely broad consensus that these injustices should be addressed and remedied.

Jeb feels that this case is one such injustice, as I read his remarks. Where an injustice is done, it is very worthwhile to seek remedy. I am not sure this overarching bill will do other than constrain the justice system unnecessarily.

There is an advocacy group for this bill, calling itself Fair Sentencing For Youth.

fairsentencingforyouth.org

Jeb, please pardon my skepticism. I find that choice of a name to be indicative of a mind set to do as I rather glibly put it: make age an excuse for felony, at sentencing.

From their front page:

Fair sentencing for youth means recognizing that young people are different from adults and our courts and laws should treat them that way. ​

I do appreciate that in many ways minors are a different legal class than adults. Lots of ways.

I do not find that the excuse of age for felony is a reasoned response to felony, particularly as regards crimes against persons. The injustice seems to me to be rooted in the provisions for what an accomplice is liable for. I understand why Texas has such a law, with the amount of gang/drug violence (over 70% of Texas court cases are drug related), and see the less than satisfactory unintended outcomes in more than one case in our news here.

It appears that in CA a judge can adjust a sentence of "LWOP" to "Life with parole." I did not find in a short search any mandatory sentencing for LWOP, but it may be there. Any Californians who can shed light on that?

Again, I fine LWOP to be a cruel and unusual punishment, one that would be better implemented by execution.

DR

 

[MikeMangum]

Many criminals are rather dumb. Why should being dumb be punishable by life in prison?

Being dumb and a repeat felony offender is very different than just being dumb. But I'm assuming you knew that before you proposed your false dilemma.

 

[jeb8757]

DR,
About “Fair Sentencing for Youth” and the Human Rights Watch Organization, Both Elizabeth Lozano and I are in contact with Elizabeth Calvin. Ms Calvin works very hard and is very passionate about providing hope to people who would otherwise have none. Elizabeth Lozano chairs an inside group that discusses issues facing juveniles serving LWOP and gives support to each other. Ms Calvin recently visited the group with some community activist from California. Javier Stauring and Dr. Wendy Smith Meyer. These are people who took time out of their very busy schedule to give support to the group. They care about people who would otherwise be forgotten and thrown away by our system.

Contrary to popular belief the system does not always serve everyone evenly. Ms Lozano was contacted buy her public defender the day before the trial. There was literally no preparation done on the part of the defense. This is probably pretty typical when dealing with a public defender. Her appeal was filed without any contact made with her. Typically juveniles from low-income families do not have the means or the knowledge to navigate the system. I would challenge Mr Horwitz’s premises that the numbers of injustices, especially concerning juvenile offenders, are few. There are over a 250 serving LWOP in California alone. There are over 2500 in the US overall.

The bill targets only juvenile offenders. I think that point was completely missed in Horwitz’s reactionary argument. Secondly the example using Hitler was pointless. Was he a juvenile or did I miss something in my history class. Oddly enough Manson and all his co-perpetrators have the ability to receive parole in California and to my knowledge none of them have and probably never will. By the way none of those were juvenile offender either. I am not qualified to argue point by point with Horowitz’s his understanding of California law is far superior to mine. I will just say after checking his background the man does seem to represent the populist neo conservative agenda of the day. They are not the most compassionate people in this country especially to certain classes of people. So his interpretation may be a bit scewed.

 

[Beerina]

Felony murder...Everyone involved in the crime is as guilty as the fellow who pulled the trigger. The getaway driver who was never in the bank... Standard stuff.

As to the post by Cainekane1 about the young psychotic... No one is trying to make the case that there are not irredeemable criminals who start in their youth; we have little choice but to incarcerate these people.
(though such cases do make one wonder about what we would do with such individuals were we able to successfully treat mental illness...)

However, as the case I profiled indicates, this does not apply to all cases. Judicial review seems like an intelligent thing in these instances.

Judicial review...as permitted by the legislature.

Never forget how we got to this "problem" -- by having judges have far too much leeway. There were some murder cases where people got out in like 7 years. Remember much of it is in the context of the late '70s timeframe.