Controversial bill that would have freed convicted felons serving life sentences stalls in legislature
Senate Bill 94, a controversial California bill that would have freed some convicted felons serving life sentences, has stalled in the legislature and will not be moving forward.
A controversial California bill that would have freed some convicted felons serving life sentences has stalled in the legislature and will not be moving forward.
SB 94, authored by California Sen. Dave Cortese, would have given certain people serving life without parole the chance to petition to have their sentences reviewed if their crimes were committed before June 5, 1990.
Advocates for the measure said it was much needed to clear the state’s overcrowded prisons.
The Los Angeles Times editorial board, for instance, wrote in SB 94’s favor, arguing that "most eligible offenders are now in their 60s and 70s, well beyond the prime age for violent crime."
The board also argued that SB 94 did not aim to release prisoners unconditionally, but created "a multistep process that would let them make their cases for resentencing." It also noted that "serial killers, cop killers and sex offenders would not be eligible."
Anne Irvine, Founder and Executive Director of Smart Justice California, called SB 94 "sound policy that advances our shared goals of public safety and rehabilitation."
Cortese introduced SB 94 last legislative session, but the measure stalled to allow time for more negotiations and amendments, such as narrowing the scope of eligible individuals and changing the number of petition attempts allowed from three to one per individual.
Cortese, who did not respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment by deadline, said in a statement that amendments were drafted that "included language requested by several law enforcement agencies, excluded torture as a ‘special circumstance,’ codified full protection of victims’ rights."
SB 94 missed a deadline this week to include the new amendments, and Cortese admitted Thursday that the measure does not have the votes to pass.
"The California model of rehabilitation often works, but we must do better. We must continue the conversation and revisit racist, inconsistent and harmful sentencing that has disproportionately impacted Californians for over twenty years, and will continue to wreak havoc until fixed," Cortese said.
Republican lawmakers, meanwhile, hailed SB 94's failure to pass this legislative session as a victory.
Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones, R-San Diego, called SB 94 "radical" and a "direct assault on the rights of California families who have suffered the unimaginable loss of a loved one at the hands of violent criminals."
"Together, we’ve ensured that when violent murderers brutally take a life, they lose their right to freedom—forever," Jones said in a statement. "Their punishment is in the name: life without parole. While I’m relieved that this dangerous legislation is finally dead for the year, we’re ready to continue the fight if it comes back. Californians will not stand for letting heinous murderers roam our streets."
Sen. Kelly Seyarto, R-Murrieta, said the outcome of SB 94 "would’ve been disastrous for public safety and victim’s rights."
"We know that when voters come together and demand to be heard, even the supermajority has to take it seriously and listen to the will of the people," Seyarto said. "That is what we saw happen today, a victory of the people over dangerous proposed policies."
In an interview with Fox News Digital, Republican Assemblyman Bill Essayli of Corona assailed SB 94 as a slap in the face to the victims’ families who must relive the horror of the crimes during parole hearings.
"It’s so mean spirited and it's just so cruel to these families to open up these wounds. They need some peace and some finality. And that's what's so destructive about this," Essayli said.
Essayli argued that SB 94 was "just the beginning" of Democratic lawmakers’ wider ambitions for prison reform.
"If they get this bill through next year, they're going to say, ‘okay, well, the new point in time is now 1995, then 2000.' It's this incrementalism that they love to do here in the legislature," Essayli said, adding: "It took them a few years to get where they wanted to go. But we all know what the destination is."
