Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/86123157/When-I-Die-They-Ll-Send-Me-Home-An-Update-1-12
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 06:12:26+00:00

Document:
When I die, thats when theyll send me home.
301 California youth have been sentenced to life without parole.
opportunity for parole and no chance for release. It is a final, irrevocable judgment. Their crimes were committed when they were teenagers, yet they will die in prison.3 They said a kid cant get the death penalty, but life without [parole], its the same thing. Im condemned, said Robert D., 36, who was in high school when he participated in a robbery during which his co-defendant shot the victim. I dont understand the difference.4 A life without parole sentence is a final judgment that classifies the defendant incorrigible. When rendered, it is a decision to throw away the life of the defendant. It is also a judgment from which there is no turning back: once made, there is no mechanism to compel review and no way to account for the changed adult that the teen may become.5 In the case of teenaged defendants, the judgment is made before the individual is fully formed.
1 Human Rights Watch interview with Charles T., serving life without parole, August 17, 2007. This name is a pseudonym.
Unless otherwise stated in this report, pseudonyms are used for California inmates and the location where they are housed is not identified. These and other measures are taken to protect them from reprisals.
others are Florida, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
by the governor, and involve a process neither conducted in open court nor with the benefit of open review. It is a decision made in large part, behind closed doors, and one not immune to political influence. Moreover, it is extremely rare: in the history of the state no California governor has ever granted clemency/pardon to an individual serving life without parole, and only one youth sentenced to life without parole has had her case commuted to a lesser sentence. See footnote 88 in this report. Governor of California, Annual Reports on Acts of Clemency for the State of California, 1993-2010, obtained from the Office of the Governor of California, November 28, 2011 (copies on file with Human Rights Watch).
methodology, please see the 2008 report, pps. 7-10. This report draws from research that Human Rights Watch conducted between 2004 and 2011 on youth offenders serving life without parole sentences in the United States. Our data from 2006 to the present includes records obtained from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and independent research using court records and press reports. We composed a survey that yielded over 130 responses in 2007, more than half of all youth serving life without parole in California. Finally, we conducted in-person interviews with approximately 35 individuals serving life without parole for crimes committed as youth. We have basic information on every person serving the sentence in the state, and more than that in most cases. Although press accounts and court documents have shed more light on many of the prisoners stories, Human Rights Watch has not tried to verify each specific allegation made and recognizes that some may be embellished or altered in the telling. In addition, we have interviewed victims family members and victims rights advocates for their perspectives. See p.63 of the 2008 report for a summary of some of those interviews.
the sentence of life without parole for juveniles and continues to monitor international juvenile sentencing laws and practices. It has found no cases of juvenile offenders serving the sentence outside the US. While several countries other than the US have laws that may permit sentencing of child offenders to a life without parole sentences, the Center for Law & Global Justice has found no cases outside the US in which the sentence is actually imposed on juveniles. Countries that have juvenile life without parole laws but do not in practice impose the sentence are: Antigua & Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Belize, Brunei, Cuba, Dominica, Saint Vincent & the Grenadines, The Solomon Islands, and Sri Lanka. C. de la Vega & M. Leighton, Sentencing our Children to Die in Prison: Global Law and Practice, University of San Francisco Law Review, vol. 42, Spring 2008, p. 989. This updated study of a 2007 report of the same name clarified that Tanzania, South Africa, and Israel no longer allow juvenile life without parole sentences.
9 Human Rights Watch estimates that there are currently about 2,570 youth offenders serving life without parole in the US.
Human Rights Watch, World Report 2009 (New York: Human Rights Watch, 2009), United States Chapter, http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2009/united-states/, p. 538.
10The number cited for those serving life without parole for crimes committed under the age of 18 is based on several sources: data obtained by Human Rights Watch from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; research conducted by Human Rights Watch on individual cases in California; and data obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Documents on file with Human Rights Watch).
unconstitutional for non-homicide crimes.). Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington. Colorado outlawed life without parole sentences for people under the age of 18 in 2006 and Texas eliminated the sentence for minors in 2010. Colorado Revised Statute 18-1.3-401(4)(b) (2009). Colorados new law was not retroactive. However, later, at the insistence of state lawmakers, the governor established a juvenile clemency advisory board in order to provide a process for review of original cases. Governor Bill Ritter, Jr., Governor of Colorado, Executive Order B-009-07, The Juvenile Clemency Board, August, 2007, http://www.njjn.org/uploads/digital_library/coclemency.pdf (accessed November 29, 2011). See also, Jessica Peck, Colorado Voices: Second chance for teen killers? Denver Post, November 26, 2011. Texas Penal Code Annotated 12.31(a)(1) (Vernon 2009).
United States, October 2005, http://hrw.org/reports/2005/us1005/index.htm, pp. 27-28. As of 2005, an estimated 59 percent of youth sentenced to life without parole were first-time offenders. This figure is based on national research. We do not have California-specific data. California law does not prohibit trying first-time offenders as adults and imposing adult sentences for murder, including life without parole. By first-time offender we mean a person without a single adult or juvenile offense.
From a moral standpoint, it would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater possibility exists that a minors character deficiencies will be reformed.
Racial disparities in Californias use of this sentence are significant: 85 percent of youth sentenced to life without parole are people of color. African American youth are sentenced to life without parole at a rate that is 18.3 times the rate for white youth.
2008, http://www.hrw.org/reports/2008/us0108/, p. 36. As of 2008, an estimated 45 percent of youth sentenced to life without parole did not actually commit the murder.
indifference to human life and as a major participant, aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, solicits, requests, or assists in the commission of a felony which results in the death of someone, will face the same penalties as if he or she had been the actual killer.
received a lower sentence than the young person who was sentenced to life without parole.
murder are sentenced to life without parole in California at a rate that is 5.83 times that of white youth arrested for murder. Overall, in the 25 states where data is available, African American youth arrested for murder are sentenced to life without parole at a rate that is 1.56 times that of white youth arrested for murder.
Francisco Law Review, vol. 42, Spring 2008, p. 989.
not warranted under any circumstances for a minor because youth offenders lack the experience, education, and mental development of adults and must be given a reasonable opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.
violating its treaty obligations under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment whose oversight body, The Committee against Torture, told the US that the sentence could constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. United Nations Committee against Torture (CAT), Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 19 of the Convention, Conclusions and recommendations of the Committee against Torture, United States of America, CAT/C/USA/CO/2, July, 25, 2006, http://daccess-ddsny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G06/432/25/PDF/G0643225.pdf?OpenElement (accessed December 20, 2011), para. 34.
Neuroscience with the Study of Context, in Dante Cicchetti and Donald Cohen, eds., Developmental Psychopathology (Oxford: John Wiley & Sons, 2006), Chapter 18, p. 710.
Culpable Than Adults, Behavioral Sciences and the Law, vol. 18, 2000, p.741. See also Laurence Steinberg, Elizabeth Cauffman, et al, Age Differences in Sensation-Seeking and Impulsivity as Indexed by Behavior and Self-Report: Evidence for a Dual Systems Model, Developmental Psychology, 44, 2008, pp.1764-1778; and M. Gardner and Laurence Steinberg, Peer Influence on Risk Taking, Risk Preference, and Risky Decision making in Adolescence and Adulthood: An Experimental Study, Developmental Psychology, 41, 2005, pp.625-635.
Developmental Psychopathology in Adolescence: Integrating Affective Neuroscience with the Study of Context, p. 727.
identity, noted the US Supreme Court in its 2005 Roper v.
$663 million: The cost of imprisoning for life all youth currently sentenced to life without parole in California.
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Corrections: Year at a Glance, Fall 2010, http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/news/docs/cdcr_year_at_a_glance2010.pdf, (accessed December 21, 2011) p. 2.; a population of 301; the exact age of each person in California currently sentenced to life in prison without parole for a crime that occurred under the age of 18; and an average life expectancy in California of 78.2 years. There are no publicly available reliable estimates of life expectancy in Californias prisons. CJL Murray, SC Kulkarni, et al., Eight Americas: Investigating Mortality Disparities across Races, Counties, and Race-Counties in the United States, Public Library of Science Medicine, vol. 3, no. 9, September 12, 2006, www.medicine.plosjournals.org. All of the estimates used here are conservative: They assume no inflation, a scenario that is unlikely and some would say impossible, even in a recession. In addition, the estimates do not account for the increasing medical costs of elderly inmates.
30 Patrick Vinck, Ph.D., director and co-Founder of the Berkeley/Tulane Initiative on Vulnerable Populations, April 12, 2007.
Cost estimates were based on two state estimates of the cost of incarcerating each prisoner per year in California: $34,150 per year and $43,000 per year. Compare, California Legislative Analysts Office, Criminal Law Primer for California, January 1, 2007, http://www.lao.ca.gov/LAOApp/PubDetails.aspx?id=1543 (accessed October 28, 2007), p. 66 (estimating the annual cost to incarcerate a prisoner as over $43,000); and California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Facts and Figures, 4th Quarter 2005, http://www.corr.ca.gov/divisionsboards/aoap/factfiguresarchive/factsfigures4thq2005.html (accessed October 28, 2007), (stating that the annual cost to incarcerate a prisoner in California is $34,000.) As referenced above, the cost to incarcerate inmates in California has increased since 2007.
Newly convicted youth offenders sentenced to life without parole will cost the state additional sums. Each new youth offender sentenced to life without parole will cost the state another $2.7 million. If California were to enact legislation permitting the review and possible release of some of these individuals, the state would save significant sums. This is true even if the alternative sentence is lengthy. For example, if each year just 10 of these individuals were released after serving 25 years in prison, over a 25 year period the state would save an estimated $301 million.
Institute on Law and Social Policy at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. 11/23/11, Berkeley, California.
In the first of these cases, the court noted that under law the rights of teens are limited in many legal contexts: The reasons why juveniles are not trusted with the privileges and responsibilities of an adult also explain why their irresponsible conduct is not as morally reprehensible as that of an adult.35 The Roper v. Simmons and Graham v.
Age is a reality that courts cannot ignore.
disqualifications placed on children as a class e.g. limitations on their ability to alienate property, enter into a binding contract enforceable against them, and marry without parental consent exhibit the settled understanding that the differentiating characteristics of youth are universal. J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 131 S. Ct. 2394, 2403 (2011).
negligence suits, for instance, where liability turns on what an objectively reasonable person would do in the circumstances, all American jurisdictions accept the idea that a persons childhood is a relevant circumstance to be considered.
40 Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 570 (2005).
attempted robbery. There were approximately 129 cases nationally in which a juvenile had been sentenced to life without parole for a non-homicide conviction. As a result of the Graham v. Florida decision, all juvenile offenders sentenced to life without parole in California were convicted of homicide. Those who were not were entitled to be resentenced to a sentence with the possibility of release.
43 Jackson v. State, 194 S.W.3d 757 (Ark. 2004), cert. granted sub nom. Jackson v. Hobbs, 80 U.S.L.W. 3280 (2011); Miller v.
State, 63 So. 3d 676 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010), cert. granted sub nom. Miller v. Alabama, 80 U.S.L.W. 3280 (2011).
The national and California-based news coverage of the issue of life without parole for juveniles as well as alternatives to extreme sentences for youth has been extensive in recent years. One indication of changing perspectives on the issue of life without parole for juveniles is the number of major newspapers in California that published editorials in favor of Senate Bill 9 which, if passed, would permit review and the possibility of resentencing to a parole-eligible sentence in juvenile life without parole sentences. Editorial examples: For juvenile lifers, a chance: SB 9 would let youthful offenders request a parole hearing. Thats both sensible and humane, Los Angeles Times, August 21, 2011; "What to do with children who kill," San Diego Union-Tribune, August 22, 2011; "Following up on parole policy for juveniles," San Francisco Chronicle, August 16, 2011; California Juveniles doing life in prison deserve opportunity for a second chance, San Jose Mercury News, August 24, 2011; and Giving young lifers a chance at redemption, Ventura County Star, August 20, 2011.
full in the original report. Human Rights Watch, When I Die, Theyll Send Me Home: Youth Sentenced to Life without Parole in California, January, 2008, http://www.hrw.org/reports/2008/us0108/, p. 11. The recommendations here are a summary.
Provide periodic review of every youth offenders eligibility for parole and a meaningful opportunity for release; and Provide opportunities for rehabilitation, education, and vocational training.
In California the determination of which youth are sentenced to life without parole and which are not is the result of many factors, some of which have little to do with the youths level of participation in the crime and the likelihood he or she will offend again. Christian Bracamontes and Martin Hernandezs cases have remarkable similarities: both were 16 at the time of their crimes, neither played an active role in the murder that resulted from the robberies, and both were offered parole-eligible sentences if they pled guilty. With hindsight, one teen made a good decision when he accepted that offer. The other will stay in prison until death.
When Christian Bracamontes was 16 he made a split-second decision that had disastrous consequences: he followed a friend into a robbery. What was I thinking? he says now, 13 years later, recalling his teenage self with exasperation. I dont know why I followed him.i Within minutes the situation turned tragic when his friend shot and killed the victim. Bracamontes sits in a California State prison. He will never get out. At the time of the crime, Bracamontes was living with his father, mother, and three younger sisters in a two-story suburban home down the street from his school. He was a good older brother; his sisters looked up to him, his family says. He loved baseball, his mother remembers.ii His family still lives in the same house, and old baseball trophies sit prominently on a shelf above the front door; gold letters read: 1996, 1997. He still wanted to be a professional baseball player when he was 16, she told us. The day of the crime, however, he was breaking the law, painting graffiti. Now, years later, he is aware of how one thing led to another.
Later he was arrested. They told me I was facing murder, he explained. Charged with murder in the first degree with special circumstances, he faced a sentence of life without parole.vi He was offered a lesser charge and a 15-to-life sentence if he pled, but he insisted on going to trial. He had a difficult time comprehending how he could plead guilty to a murder he had not committed, he told us. He remembers he simply could not imagine being in prison for even 15 years, let alone forever: Taking a dealits like admitting I did the murder. He was found guilty at trial and sentenced to life without parole. Meanwhile, Morales, who actually shot the victim, accepted a plea bargain and got a sentence that will allow him one day to ask the parole board for release. With plenty of time to think, and the maturity that comes with the passage of years, Bracamontes now has a sense of clarity about his actions that day: I think about the family who lost the man killed. I think about their pain, and I wish I could take it away, or do something for them. If I could do that day over, I would have told Jose, No, and stopped him from robbing them. He is held in a small, coveted prison unit formerly known as the Honor Yard, a placement for particularly well-behaved, problem-free inmates. Prior to being moved there he worked in plumbing. Now, he is on the janitorial crew and hopes to be permitted to be certified again as a plumber. ButWHEN Ihopes are forLL SEND MEthat cannot happen. My dream is to be released one day. I just want to go to work each day and be his real DIETHEY something HOME 14 with my family. Id like to work with kids, and help them not end up in this place.
Hes uneducated, hes a gang member, he came from, you know, a single parent home and he was involved in this horrible crime. So lets lock him up and throw away the key. I was and would always remain a failure because thats what people like me did. He was offered a lower sentence of 15 years to life, and pled guilty. Sent to prison, he made a decision: he decided to stop believing he was worthless and doomed to failure as the prosecutor had described him. The moment I stopped believing that, everything changed drastically. A faith commitment helped steer his new direction. He changed his focus. He said, I earned two associate [college] degrees and graduated with honors. He embraced a sense of duty toward others: I became a GED tutor and a college math tutor [for other inmates.] I helped graduate over a hundred inmates, he told us. He described also working with organizations inside prison serving needy people on the outside; for example, raising money to buy school supplies for children whose parents were overseas soldiers. Since he had pled to a parole-eligible sentence, he appeared before the parole board. After serving nearly 17 years in prison, he was paroled. Now, three years later, he lives on his own, works, goes to school. His days are busy, he says, but he still makes the time to speak at schools and juvenile halls, urging young people to stay out of trouble. He says he believes it is important to give to his community, and he does.
prison. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Behavioral File (C-file) of Dont Corothers, obtained by Human Rights Watch October 17, 2011 (copy on file with Human Rights Watch).
Behavioral File (C-file) of Dont Corothers, obtained by Human Rights Watch October 17, 2011 (copy on file with Human Rights Watch).
In the 14 years since Damon Dowells tragic death other people have changed too. At the time of Corotherss sentencing, Dowells mother, Melanie Washington, described her pain as her own private prison. Am I a survivor? she asked, and at the time the answer seemed like it might be no.52 She describes her son as a loving young man, who was playful but intensely embraced life. [My son] Dee had a beautiful personality. He wanted to help kids who were in trouble. He wanted to help Dont help him get out of the gang. I told Dee he was in over his head.53 Dees death was almost unbearable. A single mother, she described Dee as the glue, the backbone, and the love of the family. Washington told the sentencing court, Dont should never see the streets again and that [a]s far as I can see, this boy doesnt care about himself or the family he has broken.54 She left the courtroom satisfied with a life without parole sentence, but is not anymore. I had not a clue what that sentence meant, she says now, looking back. I thought hed get out when he was 75 or something. She remembers looking at Corothers in court throughout the trial, I kept looking at him. He was so small. I was looking at a little boy. Her sons death inspired her to act. I didnt want his life to be gone in vain, she said. She founded MentoringA Touch from Above (MATFA), an organization that mentors jailed youth, helping them take responsibility for their actions and re-enter the community as responsible young men. MATFA went on to become an award-winning program.55 She knows she has helped change many young peoples lives. That experience changed her perspective, too. Im dealing with the same kids kids who, like Dont, killed someone. I see it differently now. Come on. Life without parole for a child? Children do foolish things because they are children. When a child commits a crime, there should be a lot more to it than just throwing him in prison. She reached out to Corothers, writing and eventually meeting him in prison. He was a kid in court when I saw him [last]. Now he was a man. He laid his head on my shoulder and cried. Now years later, she says, I think Dont could come out and give back to the world. She believes the possibility of parole should exist if someone can show a repentant heart, remorse, and prove that theyre getting their life right.
October 9, 2007, and October 25, 2011.
Los Angeles, California, November 18, 2011. Los Angeles, California, November 18, 2011.
http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990_pdf_archive/954/954800735/954800735_200912_990.pdf. (accessed November 29, 2011).
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127019188 (accessed November 28, 2011).
Human Rights Watch, November 28, 2011.
Murder is a terrible crime. Pain and suffering change families, friends, and communities permanently. The fact the perpetrator is underage does nothing to alleviate the loss. But societies do make decisions about what to weigh when determining punishment. Federal law increasingly recognizes that people under the age of 18 are different from adults, and criminal law should reflect that fact.61 Current California law fails to take this into account in criminal sentencing. People who cannot buy cigarettes or alcohol, sign a rental agreement, or vote are nevertheless considered culpable to the same degree as an adult when they commit certain crimes. They then face adult penalties. California laws and courtroom practices do not fairly and accurately take into consideration the realities of youth, and the results can be unjust.
the result of decisions made by teenagers about whether to take a deal or not. It is not a reflection of who deserves to be in prison for the rest of their lives.
63 Human Rights Watch interview with Cyn Yamashiro, director, Center for Juvenile Law and Policy, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, November 18, 2011. 64 Mike Kataoka, No-Parole Life Sentence Handed Down in Slaying, Press Enterprise (Riverside), January 29, 2000. 65 Human Rights Watch interview with Vance Webster, Los Angeles, California, November 18, 2011.
plead guilty! Take it to trial; make them work for it. You wont get that long sentence, Hernandez says.66 At an age when few things are clear, those conflicting voices reinforced their confusion and, ultimately, for many, their poor choices too.
66 Human Rights Watch interview with Martin Hernandez, Hawthorne, California, November 10, 2011. 67 Human Rights Watch interview with Robert D., serving life without parole in California, July 13, 2007. 68 Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 573 (2005).
Martinez, California, December 13, 2011. Laba is a criminal defense attorney and an adjunct faculty member at Berkeley Law and Golden Gate University Schools of Law.
70 Human Rights Watch interview with Charles T., serving life without parole in California, August 17, 2007. 71 Human Rights Watch telephone interview with the mother of Brian C., Benicia, California, November 12, 2007.
second, consecutive 25-to-life sentence, making the sentence 50-years-to-life. California Penal Code Section 12022.53(d) (2011). of released prisoners who are convicted homicide offenders are convicted of a new crime (any felony or serious misdemeanor) within three years of release. By contrast, the reconviction rate of released assault offenders was 44 percent, burglary offenders was 54 percent, and drug offenders 47 percent. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994, June 2002, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf (accessed November 30, 2007), p. 7.
juvenile should be tried as an adult or stay in the juvenile justice system where he or she would have access to developmentally-appropriate rehabilitative and educational services. A judicial decision to send a youth to the adult system is based on evidence presented to the court and the courts weighing of factors such as the youths prior criminal history, his or her maturity and amenability to rehabilitative services, and the seriousness of the crime.
deliberations, you may not consider or discuss penalty or punishment in any way when deciding whether a special circumstance, or any other charge, has been proved. Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions (2011), CALCRIM No. 706, http://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/documents/calcrim_juryins.pdf (accessed November 23, 2011). Only in a death penalty case does a jury give input on the nature of the sentence. California Penal Code Section 190.1 (2011).
unless the court finds good reason to choose the less severe sentence of 25 years to life in these cases.
78 For example: While a trial court has discretion to sentence a youth to 25-years-to-life, rather than a life without parole sentence (California Penal Code Section 190.5, subd. (b)), the reality is that once a life without parole special circumstance is found true by a jury, judges do not exercise their discretion. While it may happen, I am aware of no case in which a court has reduced an LWOP sentence to a term of 25-years-to-life. Human Rights Watch email communication with L. Richard Braucher, staff attorney with the First District Appellate Project, San Francisco, California, November 23, 2012. Braucher has practiced criminal appellate law in California since 1994. 79 In California, the median time for an appeal to be decided is 404 days. Four percent of criminal cases appealed in California are reversed on appeal. Judicial Council of California, 2010 Court Statistics Report, Statewide Caseload Trends, 19992000 Through 20082009, 2010, http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/csr2010.pdf (accessed November 24, 2011), pp. 17 & 26.
but did commute the sentence of Sarah Kruzan from life without parole to 25-years-to-life. Kruzan was serving life without parole for killing the man who had raped here when she was 12 years old, afterwards using her as his prostitute. She was 16 years old at the time of the crime. Although her sentence was commuted, she has not yet been reviewed for parole. Governor of California, Annual Reports on Acts of Clemency for the State of California, 1993-2010, obtained from the Office of the Governor of California, November 28, 2011 (copies on file with Human Rights Watch).
This report was written and researched by Elizabeth Calvin, senior advocate with the Childrens Rights Division of Human Rights Watch, with help from Annie Weir, legal fellow with the Childrens Rights Division, and Dana Nahoray, legal volunteer. Additional assistance was provided by Austen Breen, intern. We thank the individuals serving life without parole and their families who shared their experiences for this report. We also thank the family members of victims who shared their experiences and opinions with us. Finally, we thank those individuals who had been, as a youth, sentenced to a life sentence with parole and are now outside of prison who agreed to be interviewed for this report. We are grateful for the willingness of these individuals to discuss what were often deeply personal and painful matters. Many volunteers have provided assistance and other support for our research on juvenile life without parole undertaken since 2004.They include the members of the Human Rights Watch Network in Los Angeles and San Francisco. Soomi Lee, Ph.D., provided expertise in economic analysis. In addition, Richard Braucher, First District Appellate Project ; Sue Burrell, Youth Law Center; Steve Churchwell, DLA Piper; Miriam Krinsky, lecturer, UCLA School of Public Affairs and member, ABA Youth at Risk Advisory Council; attorney Jonathan Laba, Pacific Juvenile Defender Center; Patricia Soung, National Center for Youth Law; provided review, legal research, and guidance. The California Human Rights Watch staff, including Justin Connolly, Andrea Dew Steele, Hava Manasse, and Caitlin McAdam provided invaluable help. Zama Coursen-Neff, deputy director, Childrens Rights Division, and Alison Parker, director of the US Program of Human Rights Watch edited the report. General Counsel Dinah Pokempner and Senior Editor Danielle Haas provided legal and program review. Production assistance was provided by Noah Beaudette, associate in the Childrens Rights Division; Grace Choi, Publications Director ; Anna Lopriore, Creative Manager; and Fitzroy Hepkins, mail manager.
and September 24, 2011. This name is not a pseudonym.
circumstances. The California Penal Code delineates the circumstances which increase the seriousness of a murder conviction, including a murder committed during the course of a felony, a murder related to gang activity, murder for financial gain, and murder by means of lying in wait, among 22 total special circumstances. California Penal 190.2. Bracamontess charge was based on the special circumstance of in the course of a felony, which was the robbery that Morales initiated.
with Human Rights Watch) and Human Rights Watch email communications with Barbara Dunn, Attorney at Law, Arcadia, California, to Human Rights Watch, December 12 through 28, 2011. Ms. Dunn represents the individual known here as Martin Hernandez.
The sentence of life without parole is a sentence to die in prison. Today, the United States is the only country in the world to impose this sentence on youth for crimes committed under age 18. In California over 300 youth have been sentenced to life without parole. This update to the 2008 Human Rights Watch report When I Die, Theyll Send Me Home presents current data on the number of youth sentenced to life without parole in California, and details significant legal changes in recent years. It also describes the cases of several young people convicted of murder: two sentenced to parole-eligible sentences who served many years in prison and are now out and contributing to their communities, and two sentenced to life without parole who will die in prison. Law and public opinion about life sentences for youth have evolved in recent years. Experience and a growing body of scientific evidence confirm there is tremendous emotional and mental growth during the late teens, and that young people differ from adults. As US Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has stated: Society changes. Knowledge accumulates. We learn, sometimes, from our mistakes... Californias law permitting juveniles to be sentenced to life without parole for murder was enacted before major advances in understanding adolescent brain development, and fails to recognize that teenagers are particularly amenable to change and rehabilitation. All youth should have the chance to prove they have changed, and to earn parole.
Letter to LAPD from a coalition of immigrants’ rights and civil rights groups regarding ICE’s practice of impersonating police in Los Angeles.

References: v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.