Recently, the SB672 bill proposed by California Democratic state senator Susan Rubio has sparked widespread controversy, particularly in the Chinese community which has always been concerned about public safety.
The bill, known as “The Youth Rehabilitation and Opportunity Act”, aims to provide a chance for incarcerated individuals aged 18 to 25 who have committed serious crimes, including murder, to be eligible for parole after serving 25 years of their sentence, allowing them to reintegrate into society.
Miss Ming from Los Angeles expressed her initial shock upon hearing about SB672, as there had been previous legislation allowing early release for individuals sentenced to life imprisonment for serious crimes committed before the age of 18, and now the age limit is being extended to just before turning 26.
“Why do this? What is the motive?” she questioned, stating that in recent years, the state government and legislators have been focused on protecting criminals rather than prioritizing the safety of law-abiding taxpayers.
California passed a law in 2012 allowing individuals sentenced to life imprisonment for crimes committed during their minor years to petition the court for a review of their sentence. In the decade leading up to 2021, 200 individuals serving life sentences were released in California.
Miss Ming believes that SB672 seems to offer a chance for young offenders to turn over a new leaf, but many of them actually require psychological treatment. She is concerned that if these individuals cannot adjust to society, they may reoffend, starting with minor crimes and gradually escalating to more serious offenses.
Arlene Chang, a small business owner who has lived in Rowland Heights for over thirty years, also believes that law-abiding residents are generally supportive and sympathetic towards giving young offenders a chance and hopes that after years of incarceration, they can mature.
However, she also believes that while SB672 may have good intentions, its actual effects may not be positive, with many grey areas in its implementation. For example, during the Covid-19 pandemic, California decided to release about 15,000 inmates to reduce prison population density and lower infection risks, resulting in serious crimes being downgraded to lesser offenses and offenders being released back into the community, posing a significant threat to public safety.
According to an analysis report by local media outlet CalMatters, 31% of released inmates went on to commit crimes again, including illegal gun possession, assaults, and theft.
“Does the California government have comprehensive measures in place? Before releasing these individuals, have they provided them with sufficient education to instill confidence and skills for a fresh start?” Ms. Chang questioned.
Under the SB672 bill, even violent offenders who commit serious crimes between the ages of 18 and 25, including those convicted of violent murders with no possibility of parole, can be considered for early parole after serving 25 years. However, the bill excludes individuals convicted of more serious crimes such as the murder of law enforcement officers, judges, government officials, or jurors, violent crimes, murder of domestic violence victims, intentional murder of children, shootings resulting in the deaths of two or more people, using explosive devices for murder, hate crimes, and torture, among others.
Rubio responded to public inquiries on her Senate webpage. She stated that the medical basis for SB672 comes from neuroscience research, showing that the brain continues to develop around the age of 25, especially the areas responsible for impulse control and decision-making, which are still evolving and changing. The bill grants the California Parole Commission the authority to review incarcerated individuals, but does not guarantee their release. The decision lies with the Parole Commission to determine if someone has genuinely reformed and no longer poses a threat to society.
She emphasized that while SB672 provides opportunities for certain serious offenders, it does not automatically mean release; the rights of victims will not be disregarded, and their families have the right to be notified, participate in hearings, and state their views to the Parole Commission.
SB672 has stirred up strong reactions in the community, with both support and opposition voices. After passing the State Senate earlier this month, the bill is currently pending review and voting in the Assembly.
Dozens of organizations have voiced support for SB672. Advocates cited a report by Human Rights Watch in 2021 regarding the reintegration of life-sentenced individuals into society, highlighting that many ex-offenders strive to give back to society, with some stating that they wake up every day aiming to make amends.
California Republican state senator Brian W. Jones, who opposes the bill, sees it as a dangerous piece of legislation. In late May, he issued a warning on social media, stating that SB672 would allow at least 1,600 ruthless murderers to be released early, all of whom were previously sentenced to life imprisonment with no possibility of parole. Jones asserted that this is the end of the story, but Democratic lawmakers time and time again demonstrate their disregard for victims or their families, not prioritizing public safety but rather protecting killers.
Numerous dissenting voices on NBC-affiliate local TV station KCRA3’s correspondent Ashley Zavala’s social media post remarked, “Gun sales will skyrocket.,” “Why can they apply for early release after being sentenced? What’s the point of a sentence then?,” “Haha, ‘life imprisonment’ is just a joke, you can go now.,” “Why are they so focused on helping criminals instead of Californian residents?”
In addition, various organizations and entities, including the California District Attorneys Association and the District Attorney’s offices of Orange County, Riverside County, and San Diego County, have also expressed opposition to SB672. ◇