SB 260: California’s Youthful Offender Parole Bill

SB 260: The Youthful Offender Parole Bill

Law On the Books

On September 16, 2013, California’s governor Jerry Brown approved the passage of Senate Bill 260 (SB 260). The law, informally known as the Youthful Offender Parole Bill, officially went into effect on January 1, 2014. SB 260 was devised as a measure aimed to reduce the number of incarcerated youth in California’s overcrowded prison system. The bill gives a second chance to youth offenders who had been imprisoned after being tried as adults. It allows certain offenders, who were minors at the time they committed their crime, to be reconsidered for their eligibility to obtain parole earlier. The bill is one of many passed by state legislators in an effort to reduce the severity of the harsh punishments imposed by policies written in accordance with the legal philosophies dominant during the “tough on crime” era.

The intent of SB 260 is to acknowledge and account for the psychological and neurobiological differences between youth and adults in sentencing. Simultaneously, it works to relieve overpopulation pressure off a prison system bloated by mass incarceration.

Before the passage of SB 260, thousands of minors could be found in prisons all over California, some resigned to living the rest of their lives behind bars. In 2000, California legislators passed Proposition 21, which “…made it easier to try juveniles as adults.“ (Kandil 2015). The law ruled that adolescents as young as fourteen could be tried and sentenced in adult court for certain felonies (Hancock 2013). The digital juvenile justice organization, Fair Sentencing for Youth, states that, as a result, “over 6,500 people … in California prisons were under the age of 18 at the time of their crime”.

Under SB 260, eligible youthful offenders are entitled to request a hearing conducted by the California Board of Parole Hearings. At these examinations, the offender’s case is reviewed, and the parole board must “…consider their [prisoner’s] immaturity, inability to consider consequences, peer influences, etc.,” at the time of their crime, and to “…consider prisoners’ subsequent growth and increased maturity compared to the time of their crimes.” (Watley 2013).

The rationale backing SB 260 relies on the reevaluation of the standards of behavioral maturity that adolescents are held to. Advocates of the bill claim that adolescents are not fully developed in terms of emotional maturity and understanding. They also argue that – in general – minors do not have access to the necessary resources needed in order for them to be held accountable for navigating the law the same way as legal adults should. The text of the bill takes note this crucial fact, saying that “…developments in psychology and brain science continue to show fundamental differences between juvenile and adult minds,” including “parts of the brain involved in behavior control”. As a result, it goes on to say that, in regards to potential change in young convicts, “…As a youth matures into an adult and neurological development occurs, these individuals can become contributing members of society.”  (Hancock 2013)

In accounting for the differences in expectations of behavioral maturity, authors of SB 260 sought to reduce the severity of the punishments exacted on juveniles tried as adults. Nevertheless, crimes committed do not go unpunished; the bill still holds minors accountable for any injustices done, but it gives them a chance at redemption after serving time. According to Human Rights Watch, ideally, the law would ensure that “ youth who were transferred to and sentenced in adult court” eventually had “…their sentence reviewed after serving ten years. “. Ultimately, the main purpose of SB 260 is “ to establish a parole eligibility mechanism that provides a person serving a sentence for crimes that he or she committed as a juvenile…the opportunity to obtain release when he or she has shown that he or she has been rehabilitated and gained maturity” (Hancock 2013).

Proponents, of the law, including public figures such as Governor Jerry Brown and private citizens such as the inmates’ families and the inmates themselves, claim that SB 260 is a progressive step in reforming the way juvenile laws are written and enacted. Not only does the bill give youth offenders a chance at redemption and rehabilitation, but it also addresses issues pertaining to mass incarceration. State Senator Loni Hancock, the author of the bill, asserts that SB 260 “…give[s] young people hope, give[s] them an incentive to change” (Kandil 2015).

Opponents of the bill are community members (and their representatives), mainly, who are understandably apprehensive about recidivism and legal ambiguity. The California District Attorney’s Office, which opposed the bill, wrote that their main concern with the bill was that it would “…potentially result in the early release of many serious offenders” and posed a “severe risk to public safety” (Hancock 2013).

 

Law in Action

In September of 2013, California’s Senate Bill 260 (SB 260) was passed as a part of a suite of legislative reforms that sought to heal the damage done by harsh penal regulations implemented during the “get tough on crime” era. The bill gives a second chance to prisoners who were under 18 at the time of committing their crimes, but were tried as adults for the offense. The bill gives youth offenders a chance to have an earlier-than-scheduled parole hearing after serving a proportion of their given sentence (Prison Law Office 2016). At the hearing, offenders may have their sentence time reduced, with their age at the time of their crime and their behavioral growth considered “with great weight” (Kandil 2015). The bill takes into account that adolescents differ from adults in terms of neurobiological and behavioral maturity, and so should be given a chance at redemption after serving time for their crimes committed as juveniles. While the bill seems promising on paper, it remains to ask whether or not it has it achieved its intended purpose in actual application. Because the actions delegated by the bill are more passive and permissive, its effectiveness may be evaluated by examining raw statistic, and its impact on individuals in affected communities.

SB 260 is a relatively new law, but one of its most straightforward goals is to reduce overcrowding in California’s prison system.  There are currently approximately 6,500 inmates in California’s prison system who were under 18 at the time of their crime (Kandil 2016). An article in the New York Times projects that “The law could affect about 5,700 California prisoners who were under 18 at the time of their crime” – exempting prisoners who are ineligible for early release (Wegman 2013). If the law could affect 5,700 of the 6,500 youth offenders, it could potentially relieve a massive strain off of California’s overcrowded prisons. This aligns with the state’s overall efforts to reduce the prison population in accordance with other statutes such as Proposition 47, which reduces the severity of punishments exacted on non-serious, non-violent, and non-sexual offenders (Jackman 2016).

Besides reducing prison overpopulation, SB 260 has merited recognition in regards to its effectiveness. An article from the First Focus Campaign provides a remarkable statistic about SB 260 : “ … [of] 490 parole hearings, 155 people have been approved for release and there has been no recidivism thus far”. This shows that SB 260 has achieved its intended effect of giving a second chance to youth offenders. Additionally, in the wake of SB 260’s effectiveness, another measure, SB 261, was passed in October of 2015. This new bill changed the age cap of the youth offenders from under 18 to under 23 years old; the passage of SB 261 has allowed the effects of SB 260 to extend to an even greater population.

Statistics and legal decisions, however, only tell one side of the multi-faceted story. There exists a multitude of articles and anecdotes written about the impact of SB 260 – many authored by former convicts who were directly affected by the bill. A common sentiment held by these youth offenders is that they often lament that they were naive and unwitting when committing their crime. Michael Mendoza, convicted of first-degree murder when he was a minor, notes in an interview with San Jose Inside that, at the time of his crime, he “… was totally ignorant” and “ …didn’t consider the impact that this decision would have… on his family and on the community” (Kandil 2015). Upon receiving a sentence of 15-years-to-life, he said, “It’s the most hopeless thing you can feel”. Mendoza was later released under SB 260; he praises the efforts of the officials and citizens backing the bill, explaining that he “…didn’t know there were people out there fighting for individuals like me”. Mendoza’s story is one of many firsthand accounts that truly show how SB 260 has given youth offenders a meaningful chance at redemption.

Selection of inmates for SB 260 follows no pattern of enforcement rooted in systemic bias, for all eligible youth offenders in California’s prisons are equally considered under the bill. Unfortunately, there is no data currently available to see if personal biases held by parole board members affect the outcome of SB 260 hearings, due to the relative newness of the law.  However, indirectly, SB 260 works to reverse the effects of a prejudiced pattern of enforcement in policing that has disproportionately targeted underserved and minority populations. It is no secret that policies enacted during California’s “tough on crime” era, compounded with the fervor brought on by the national “War on Drugs”, has taken a toll on poor urban colored communities. SB 260 helps mend some of these injustices by offering a second chance to youth offenders from these communities who may have been caught up in gang activity or imprisoned for illegal substance possession, for example.

Despite the tentative success of SB 260, it does not exist without its objections and concerns. Critics of the bill understandably point out that many of these youth offenders were tried for serious – some violent- crimes, and may pose a threat to public safety if released. As with many prison “leniency” reforms, an important concern brought on by SB 260 is recidivism. A common rhetoric regarding early release and parole, is that repeat offenders would not have been able to commit some of their crimes had they still been incarcerated. Highlights of California Governor Jerry Brown’s public safety measures notes that while the majority of the aspects of SB 260 are positive, especially for the perpetrator and his or her loved ones, victims and their families may not feel the same way (Juvenile Justice Program 2014). An article on Fox40 raises this concern, stating that “…the new laws benefit prisoners… at the expense of their victims.” (Comstock 2016).  And although there have been no incidents of recidivism under SB 260 so far, this is not guaranteed to hold true in the future. Thus, perhaps a way to strengthen the cause for SB 260 is to install measures to provide protection and peace of mind for victims and their families. Increased access to resources such as professional counseling or victim protection programs may counteract or mitigate the fears brought on by the bill.

Despite potential threats to public safety, SB 260 represents a step in the right direction for collective social welfare. So far, the effects of SB 260 in practice have been overwhelmingly positive. SB 260 is projected to play a substantial role in reducing the number of prisoners in California’s overcrowded prison system.  Additionally, the absence of recidivist incidents and the meaningful opportunities provided to exonerated youth offenders have shown that SB 260 is working and is achieving its intended purpose. The passage of SB 260, along with other reform measures such as SB 261 and Proposition 47, represent a progressive movement towards undoing some of the damage done by policies enacted during the “tough on crime” era. Ultimately, reformative bills such as SB 260 will hopefully not only mend issues that plague California’s prison system, but will also set the precedent for future rational and restorative policies to be enacted within this frame of mind.

 

Bibliography

“Senate Bill No.260.” Bill.

Kandil, Caitlin. 2015. “Mass Incarceration of CA Teens Inspires Legislative Reform.” San Jose Inside.

 

On The Books

Hancock, Loni. 2013. “SB 260 Senate Bill.” Bill Analysis. California Legislative Information.

Wattley, Keith. 2013. “Frequently Asked Questions About SB 260”. Uncommon Law.

2015. “California Senate Bill 260 Is Signed into Law.” Human Rights Watch.

“California Proposition 21, Treatment of Juvenile Offenders (2000) – Ballotpedia.” Ballotpedia.

“Justice for Juveniles with Adult Prison Sentences.” Fair Sentencing For Youth.

In Action

“Senate Bill No.261.” Bill.

Jackman, Tom. 2016. “Mass Reduction of California Prison Population Didn’t Cause Rise in Crime, Two Studies Find.” Washington Post.

Comstock, Nicole. 2016. “Law Gives Young Offenders a Second Chance, but It Troubles Victims.” FOX40.

Curley, Kevin. 2014. “SB 260: Don’t Deny Yourself a Chance at Life.” San Francisco Bay View.

Wegman, Jesse. 2013. “Once Again, California Eases Harsh Sentencing Laws.” The New York Times.