The controversial Californian Senate Bill 94 brings with it the looming possibility of significant change to the state's criminal justice system, as well as distressingly rekindled pain for victims and their families, via the DA of San Diego County. The bill, which currently makes its way through the legislature, causes alarm by proposing that life-sentenced multiple murderers allow to petition a court for resentencing upon the completion of a minimum of 25 years in their sentence. But in order to qualify, the office must have been committed before June 5, 1990.
San Diego County District Attorney Summer Stephan is a vocal opponent of the bill, citing a seemingly skewed balance of justice. In her formal letter of opposition sent to the Chair of the Assembly Public Safety Committee, DA Stephan details several points of concern related to SB 94. Among these concerns are the questionable notions regarding the requirements and consequences of resentencing, including a lack of required remorse or rehabilitation and a seemingly preferential treatment towards defendants over victims and overall community safety.
DA Stephan asks the critical question of how justice could possibly be served when some of the most heinous murderers are allowed to request a new sentence, simply based on the passage of time. The mere possibility can serve as a heavy burden for those already struggling with the lasting impact of the brutal crimes.
Adding to the stark imbalance in the proposed legislation, SB 94 appears to place the scales of justice in favor of defendants by requiring "great weight" be given to mitigating evidence offered by the convicted murderer, rather than allowing for a more objective decision. As DA Stephan explains, the bill "severely limits a sentencing judge's discretion to deny the petition for resentencing". This issue is further exacerbated by the fact that the law does not allow great weight to be given to aggravating factors such as the calculated and cruel nature of the crime, leaving behind orphaned children, or any sadistic elements present in the crime.
SB 94 also generates concern for the sheer scale of the judicial burden it is projected to cause. The potential requirement for judges to reconsider sentencing in decades-old cases stands as a time and resource-consuming prospect, leaving many to question the practicality alongside the morality of the proposed legislation.
