By Yana Singhal
LOS ANGELES, CA – The Felony Murder Elimination Project, in a response to the California State Supreme Court ruling made in the People V Hardin case, said it supported the Drop LWOP coalition in the question of the “exclusion of people serving life without parole (LWOP) from youth offender parole hearings (and that the policy) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
“(D)espite the rigorous efforts made by Mr. Hardin’s defense and others, the Court decided not to rectify this glaring inequality impacting those sentenced to LWOP for offenses committed between the ages of 18 and 26,” said the Felony Murder Elimination Project (FMEP)
Hardin’s case was sent to California’s Supreme Lower Court because it was found that there was “no rational basis” for the distinction between “those sentenced to 25 years to life and those sentenced to LWOP for crimes committed when they were under 26 years old,” FMEP reported.
“The reason why we differentiate actions against the youth and elders is because of the level of brain development between parties and the people serving LWOP for offenses that occurred as youth are no different than any other group of people within the prison system,” added FMEP.
FMEP added, “The California Supreme Court did not agree with this perspective, voting 5-2 that it was not an equal protection violation to deny the opportunity of youth offender parole to people sentenced to LWOP for crimes committed under age 26. Ultimately, the court deferred to the legislature to fix this problem. Two justices, Evans and Liu, disagreed with this decision and wrote dissenting opinions that were nearly 70 pages long.”
Justice Evans reasoned the exclusion “lacks rationality” and “perpetuates extreme racial disparities plaguing our juvenile and criminal justice systems,” explained FMEP, noting how this case could end up course correcting history’s role of causing a negative role between races.
FEMP argued the equal protection clause ensures that lawmakers treat all minors the same regardless of the crimes committed as they are more likely to change over time if attempted because of how brain development happens.
The Project announced it hopes “the Legislature will correct itself by ridding section 3051 of the LWOP exclusion and extending youth offender parole eligibility to all individuals who were convicted in their youth.”
FEMP wrote more than “60 percent of people sentenced to LWOP in California were 25 or under at the time of their offense, and over 68 percent of those serving LWOP are Black and Brown.”
In January of this year, Massachusetts state Supreme Court determined the “LWOP violates the MA constitution entirely for anyone under the age of 21, meaning all LWOP sentences will be changed to allow for parole eligibility,” said the Felony Murder Elimination Project.
“The Hardin decision is based on an arcane, out-of-touch law and a very narrow, highly legalistic issue that has nothing to do with whether LWOP is right or wrong,” said Elizabeth Calvin, senior advocate with Human Rights Watch.
Calvin added, “While the court’s decision ignores the harms of LWOP and the racism on which the US criminal legal system is built, this opinion is not going to slow down our efforts to end LWOP, whether in the courts or legislature. The movement to stop death by incarceration has never been stronger.”
FEMP added, “When people sentenced to death refuse to give up hope and earn their way home against all odds, all of society benefits from their transformative success stories of community service, mentorship, and violence prevention—which are well documented in Human Rights Watch’s report, ‘I Just Want to Give Back: The Reintegration of People Sentenced to Life Without Parole.’”
“The report focused on the lives of over 110 people who had LWOP, but were unexpectedly paroled due to a change in law or commutation. The recidivism rate of people coming home from LWOP sentences is nearly 0 percent,” said FEMP.
“I was sentenced to die in prison with an LWOP sentence and the judge granted me mercy, I was 26 years old at the time of my crime,” said Joseph Bell, an advocate with Drop LWOP and Human Rights Watch and a founding member of the National LWOP Leadership Council.
Bell added, “It’s a travesty that the California Supreme Court did not choose mercy for 18-to 25-year-olds, but I am confident that the arbitrary nature of LWOP sentencing will continue to be challenged through the courts and every other avenue.”
