@mareenaalexusCA Politics California’s long-standing felony murder rule has imprisoned hundreds of individuals throughout the state for a murder they essentially did not commit. The rule states that those of whom had participated in any part of the crime even if they played a small part such as the driver or lookout and had no intention or knowledge that a murder was even being committed will be treated as if they were the person directly responsible for that person’s death. Which begs the question of, why should we care? The simple fact of the matter comes down to the issue at hand which is that the felony murder rule is known as archaic as it was presented in an era of over-justice, and will only bring tax payers to house inmates who really shouldn’t be serving life sentences.
In an era of over-justice, “get tough on crime” is often viewed as one that has left Americans and Californians alike to flood our prison systems with prisoners serving punitive sentences for low level offenses and in this case, murders they didn’t commit. According to Los Angeles Times author Jazmine Ulloa, local California man, Bobby Garcia served 21 years in prison for the murder of a man whose life he didn’t personally take. When Garcia was in ninth grade he and four teenage friends robbed a man for gas money on their way to a party and not long after the incident Garcia learned that the man was also stabbed and inevitably died from his wounds. Garcia believed the incident occurred while he was in the car waiting for his friends and insisted that he never planned to murder someone and that it was only his intent to rob the man (Ulloa, 2018). He later took a plea deal and served 25 years in prison rather than withholding his innocence and face the possibility of lifetime incarceration by jury. Years after his release Garcia lobbied aside Democratic State Senator Nancy Skinner as they awaited Senate Bill 1437’s approval. The new bill would prevent prosecutors from utilizing the felony murder rule so hastily in order to get longer and harsher sentences put forth on an individual who wasn’t directly responsible for the death of another. The bill didn’t pass through the initiative but instead landed on former California Governor, Jerry Brown’s desk through a proposal that would limit prosecutors from its usage and allow those currently serving time under the rule to be eligible for resentencing. Although that’s not to say that voters never played a big part in its creation. It seems as though the era of “get tough on crime” remains in the rear-view mirror of Californians and Americans alike. According to the Northern California ACLU (2017) 71 percent of people say it’s important to reduce the prison population in America, 72 percent of Americans would be more likely to vote for an elected official who supports eliminating mandatory minimum laws, and 71 percent of Americans agree that incarceration is often counterproductive to public safety due to its lack of rehabilitating programs that often end in prisoners recidivating. In the previous 2016 presidential election, then candidate Trump was a strong advocate on his platform of the nation’s failed “get tough on crime” policy that has led Americans in a shamble of prisoner debt. According to Udi Ofer (2017), a political director for the ACLU’s Campaign for Smart Justice, “Americans reject President Trump’s 1990s-era tough-on-crime approach and overwhelmingly believe in a different and smarter approach.” Although California has come a long way prior to the passage of bill 1437, it doesn’t guarantee the inmates currently serving these harsh sentences full clemency or a one-way ticket out of prison. These inmates have been sentenced to lengthy sentences due to the language in which they were sentenced, felony murder rule. Leading inmates serving prison terms of 25 years to life and even life without possibility of parole for a murder they themselves did not commit. Of the worst of the worst criminals here in California, the sexual abusers, rapists, murderers, mutilators, etc. are those serving time for the felony murder rule, those who weren’t responsible for anyones death. California tops the charts at being the leader of housing life and virtual life (those ineligible for parole until serving 50 years of their sentence of longer) prisoners at a whooping 40,691 inmates making one inmate serving a life sentence for every three incarcerated inmates in prison. Additionally, among those 40,691 inmates currently 34, 607 are serving life sentences and of those, are inmates more than likely those sentenced under California’s felony murder rule (Sentencing Project, 2017). Not only should it be concerning that Californians sent those of whom weren’t directly responsible for the murder to life imprisonment, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office (2019), we’re cashing out $81,203 per inmate as 2018-2019 statistics indicate. Over three-quarters of these costs are for security and inmate health care which shouldn’t be surprising considering the fact that California incarcerated these felony murder inmates back in the 90’s and many of whom are now considered geriatric or elderly inmates (Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2019). According to Joan Petersilia (2017), co-director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center, “We released all the low-risk, low-need and we kept in the high-risk, high-need.” By keeping those sentenced under the felony murder rule for a murder they didn’t commit, California is spending essentially billions of dollars for prisoners whose time has most likely already been spent.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorUndergraduate student generated content. Blog posting and updating done by Kristina Flores Victor, Assistant Professor of Political Science at CSUS Archives
March 2020
Categories
All
|