California Insists That Victim Suffering Must Continue Decades After The Crime

Guest Post by David Boyd

Our California Constitution guarantees victims of crimes the following right (among others): “To a speedy trial and a prompt and final conclusion of the case and any related post-judgment proceedings.” In explaining the need for this right, our constitution says, “Victims of crime are entitled to finality in their criminal cases. Lengthy appeals and other post-judgment proceedings that challenge criminal convictions, frequent and difficult parole hearings that threaten to release criminal offenders, and the ongoing threat that the sentences of criminal wrongdoers will be reduced, prolong the suffering of crime victims for many years after the crimes themselves have been perpetrated. This prolonged suffering of crime victims and their families must come to an end.”

This right, and its foundational basis, is being routinely violated in its spirit if not its letter. Within the last several years our Legislature as well as our Governor through the secretary of the Department of Corrections has ignored our constitution. Instead of passing laws preserving finality, they have instead created new laws and programs to reopen tens of thousands of cases statewide, thus creating the very suffering that that the constitution directs must end.

These new laws and programs have not been only for the non-violent. Rather, those convicted of murder are eligible. So are those who committed violent crimes with guns. Not to be left out are those who were convicted of serious or violent crimes who had previous convictions for one or more serious or violent crimes. In one case I have seen, a man who received nearly 80 years in prison in the 1980s for multiple home invasion rape/forced oral copulation convictions was sent back to court so the court could strike 5 years off his sentence. Imagine the pain and suffering of many of those women upon hearing the man who broke into their home and violated them gets a new sentencing hearing. The reality is the vast majority of the defendants who have received the benefit of these laws and programs that fail to honor the victims’ constitutional right to finality are major violent criminals.

Undeterred, starting next year our Legislature has extended this victim suffering to a wider group of violent criminals, those convicted of manslaughter (so long as they were originally charged with murder) and attempted murder. Additionally, the sentencing rules have been rewritten to generate substantial presumptions, that are nearly impossible to overcome, that virtually every defendant sent back for resentencing is no longer a threat to the public. Given that recidivism rates that exceed 80%, that presumption is simply false. When the law does not mirror reality, people lose respect.

It is true that these laws do not benefit every defendant, but thousands (likely tens of thousands) are coming back to court getting new hearings at great cost, both in dollars for an overburdened legal system that still has new cases coming through the door, and, far more importantly, at great cost in victim suffering all over again. It may shock you to learn that some of these laws do not require a shred of evidence of rehabilitation. Specifically, the one that targets resentencing for murders, attempted murders, or those who have committed manslaughter has no requirement that the defendant is safe for release. Even the voters’ resentencing scheme for relatively minor thieves (Prop 47) included such a requirement. So did Proposition 36’s adjustments to the three strikes law in 2012.

The California Supreme Court has said, “No one, not criminal defendants, not the judicial system, not society as a whole is benefited by a judgment providing a man shall tentatively go to jail today, but tomorrow and every day thereafter his continued incarceration shall be subject to fresh litigation.” (In re Reno (2012) 55 Cal.4th 428, 451.) It seems that the Governor and the Legislature simply disagrees with the Supreme Court, and our Constitution.

It is time for the courts to stand up for the rights of victims.

The opinions expressed here are those of the author and not necessarily those of his employer.