CA changes felony murder law for 2019; numerous appeals expected

[burblestein]

More typically, though, a pack of bored young bucks are helling about drinking beer, smoking dope, and busting one another's chops. Either one guy feels "double-dare" pressured into pulling a stickup, or the pack mentality takes over. Either way, there's a dead body somehow, and the pack to blame.

These were the type murders committed by the five men in "Life After Murder". Not a serial or multiple killer in the bunch. None of the five were psychopaths or sociopaths.

 

[burblestein]

Let me swerve back to an earlier theme--the effect the change in law will have on us Californians. I find it instructive to consider a local case just ending:
CA - Jeffrey Settler, 35, slain at his Laytonville pot farm, 11 Nov 2016
The quick and dirty on this: eight males and a female with a child converged on Mendocino County from throughout the USA. Purpose: grow illegal marijuana and become obscenely wealthy. However, head grower lays off work force. Work force tanks up at local bar, returns to the pot plantation. The seven males murder the honcho, rip off hundreds of pounds of market ready mary jane and a fair whack of currency, and split.

Cut to the chase: all seven of the killers are captured and charged--under the law of parties--with first degree murder and kidnapping. (They hauled the woman and child into town after the murder.)

Three plead out early, at nine years apiece for the standard "Tell the truth against co-defendants or we'll drop the hammer on you" deal. The next one pleads guilty to manslaughter, for 14 years. Two more somehow score only three years for robbing an inhabited dwelling. Number seven's case is still unsettled.

So what's the effect in this case? There is only one remaining opportunity for a first degree conviction. Given the above, how likely is it? And just how effective was the law of parties in this case? Well, it leveraged a bunch of plea bargains, but it sure didn't send up a whole crew of murderers, did it?

Then again, it's easy to take the attitude, Why should Mendocino County have to expend its monies on some other locality's criminals? After all, we have a plentiful collection of local miscreants, and no need to import criminals. Except that the two thugs sentenced to three years already have served about two years, and are due out soon...if not already.

And, oh yeah, the first three criminals, the ones who copped the nine year sentences...can now appeal, under the new law, for a reduction in their terms.

 

[katydid23]

I am actually okay with the law...because it really is feminist. Usually men are the violent ones, a woman is in car, Listening to music, and the guy jumps in, "Floor it". Okay. And later find out he robbed the 7-11, killed a guy, and the woman, in the car, who had nothing to do with the crime, gets jacked up. That is crap.

It rarely happens that way. If the woman had no idea, then she can testify against him and walk away with no prison time. But if you are the getaway driver, and you know your bf is going to rob someone, then you should be held accountable too, imo.

 

[katydid23]

More typically, though, a pack of bored young bucks are helling about drinking beer, smoking dope, and busting one another's chops. Either one guy feels "double-dare" pressured into pulling a stickup, or the pack mentality takes over. Either way, there's a dead body somehow, and the pack to blame.

These were the type murders committed by the five men in "Life After Murder". Not a serial or multiple killer in the bunch. None of the five were psychopaths or sociopaths.

Well does it matter if there arr any serial killers or spree killers in the bunch? If they do a stick up, with a loaded weapon, and someone DIES because of their violent nature, then they should all be locked up, imo.

 

[katydid23]

I really HATE this new law. We have so many gangs in Cali. And they typically go out and rob and create mayhem in a group. So a car full of young criminals may carjack someone or pull an armed robbery, and the victim is shot.

Often, the cops are able to pull over the car at some point and find the gun under the seat. They dot know which person pulled the trigger, and they all point fingers at each other. But under the current law, if they all roll up on someone to rob them, and the victim dies, they all go to jail. That <<< is how it should be.

Now, we are going to set all five of the violent free because LE will never know which one was the shooter. That makes me very angry. If someone drives around with their friends and a loaded gun, looking for trouble, they should ALL be held accountable.

 

[burblestein]

In the Settler case--and this is oh so typical--the law of parties served only as leverage to turn the defendants against one another. The new law deprives prosecutors of even that. And as katy observes, this may result in all the guilty parties not being held to account.

And as katy als0 observes, the spread of gangbanging has gotten to the point of the ridiculous. For instance, I live 500 miles from the Mexican border and over 400 from LA, and this rural county is still plagued with Nortenos versus Surenos and Crips versus Bloods. In both these examples, these are no longer ethnic gangs, but multi-ethnic ones with no real connection to the originals in southern Cal. Then there are the foreign mafias stealthily moving in for the "greenrush"....

Add to that the recent "realignment act", which mandates a more dangerous class of criminal being kept in local jails instead of prisons...getting scary out here.

 

[cvaldez1975]

I really HATE this new law. We have so many gangs in Cali. And they typically go out and rob and create mayhem in a group. So a car full of young criminals may carjack someone or pull an armed robbery, and the victim is shot.

Often, the cops are able to pull over the car at some point and find the gun under the seat. They dot know which person pulled the trigger, and they all point fingers at each other. But under the current law, if they all roll up on someone to rob them, and the victim dies, they all go to jail. That <<< is how it should be.

Now, we are going to set all five of the violent **** free because LE will never know which one was the shooter. That makes me very angry. If someone drives around with their friends and a loaded gun, looking for trouble, they should ALL be held accountable.

i have a feeling that if it was gang related, they would go for the gang enhancement. there is a statute that adds time / liability when it is done in the furtherance of criminal gang activity.

 

[burblestein]

The gang enhancement law could certainly figure into gangbanger cases.

The last defendant in my example case just copped his plea for 14 years. So, after seven charges of first degree murder, the result is two sentences of 14 years each, three of nine years, and two of three years. All subject to appeal under the new retroactive law. This outcome would make a hyena puke.

 

[AzPistonsGirl]

I lived in the LA area for a long time and may end up back there one day soon. I am not sure about this bill - still doing my research - but I just want to briefly defend California in general here. California has a lot of opportunities, diversity, culture, and freedoms that other states certainly don't have (you know, for those who like those things...)

I know this is not a CA thread - or, more adequately a "bash CA" thread - but jeez, I had to throw some love out west...

 

[Wagtales10]

How dare California try to look at the whole picture when trying a case!

 

[Wagtales10]

a "bash CA" thread - but jeez, I had to throw some love out west...

It pretty much is

 

[burblestein]

As the California resident who began this thread, I can not picture living anywhere else but in redwood country. And while I accept that the beauty and ambiance of the north coast is offset by ongoing violence caused by the marijuana black market, I can still object to that violence and how it is legally dealt with. This thread is aimed at that one particular concern of living in California. Certainly, California is doing a better job of dealing with murderous violence than, for example, my native city of "Bodymore, Murderland".

 

[burblestein]

As it turned out, the Settler homicide case was the first to be sentenced under the new law--at least in Mendocino County. There is also suspicion that some of the leniency was a response to the kidnap victim being the daughter of a high official with Homeland Security. The new Mendocino news website, the Mendocino Voice, is suspected as being part of an online ploy to secure lower sentences for the homicide defendants.

Anderson Valley Advertiser: The Seven Deadly Trimmers

 

[crhedBngr]

I lived in the LA area for a long time and may end up back there one day soon. I am not sure about this bill - still doing my research - but I just want to briefly defend California in general here. California has a lot of opportunities, diversity, culture, and freedoms that other states certainly don't have (you know, for those who like those things...)

I know this is not a CA thread - or, more adequately a "bash CA" thread - but jeez, I had to throw some love out west...

I completely agree. Most people we worked with were able to purchase their own homes, raise kids and live in safe suburbs. There are parts of L.A. that are quite safe as well. Property taxes are fixed between 1 - 2 percent of the assessed real estate price, which is reasonable. Wisconsin, which is where I was born and raised, has higher property taxes than we do. Our employer allows telecommuting and flex time (example--starting at 5:00 a.m. and then leaving earlier). There are many excellent schools and universities. And I am really, really thankful that I had my choice of hospitals and doctors when going through my breast-cancer experience.

Obviously, things are not perfect out here (the deadly fires, for example), but I absolutely love waking up to sunshine most of the time. And I do feel pretty safe taking my walks around the city streets.

Here's an article on which states have the highest and lowest property taxes.

What Are the Best and Worst States for Property Taxes?

 

[crhedBngr]

I'm a voracious reader of true crime books.

And then we enter into interesting ground here. Believe it or not, the recidivism rate for released murderers is very low if the parole board does its job. Then again, how much trust can the California public have if Lawrence Singleton and Richard Allen Davis won parole?

RSBBM

Believe me, they will not. There would be a huge, huge outrage if the parole board approved their freedom.

Manson Family member Leslie Van Houten was up for parole, and she was denied it by Gov. Brown early this year. Many, many people sent him emails asking him to overturn the parole board's decision to free her. This is the second time that he has done so.

Manson follower Leslie Van Houten denied parole by governor

While I don't care for the above law, I think all factors of the crime will be taken into account when deciding who goes free.

 

[burblestein]

Both Davis and Singleton were on parole when they committed their murders. In Singleton's case, the state hopscotched him from place to place to parole him as they were met with indignant crowds wherever they tried to move him into a neighborhood. So much for public outcry limiting parole.

On the other hand, if The Manson Women and Me can be believed, Van Houten is now a harmless grandmotherly type. Again, so much for the value of public outcry.

The sort that needs to be done is divining which murderers are psychopaths, and hanging onto them. As mentioned (and exaggerated) in Life After Murder, younger non-psychopaths mature and age out of criminality like Van Houten did.

Not to offer offense to other's opinions, but I began this thread because I believe the law of parties offers necessary legal tools for deciding who is responsible for murder(s).

 

[crhedBngr]

Both Davis and Singleton were on parole when they committed their murders. In Singleton's case, the state hopscotched him from place to place to parole him as they were met with indignant crowds wherever they tried to move him into a neighborhood. So much for public outcry limiting parole.

On the other hand, if The Manson Women and Me can be believed, Van Houten is now a harmless grandmotherly type. Again, so much for the value of public outcry.

The sort that needs to be done is divining which murderers are psychopaths, and hanging onto them. As mentioned (and exaggerated) in Life After Murder, younger non-psychopaths mature and age out of criminality like Van Houten did.

Not to offer offense to other's opinions, but I began this thread because I believe the law of parties offers necessary legal tools for deciding who is responsible for murder(s).

Thanks for that. No offense taken. I hadn't realized that Singleton had been released and then did another murder in Florida.

 

[burblestein]

No offense meant. I figured you were working from incomplete information.

Maybe I am hairsplitting in mentioning these two examples. Neither Singleton nor Davis were paroled for murder(s). However, the idea of an early release for a vicious psychopath like Singleton who blamed his female teen victim for having him chop off her hands is an aberration that makes me wonder about the parole board members' sanity.

 

[burblestein]

Meanwhile, the Settler case seems to give us a clue as to the "protection" afforded by first degree murder prosecutions under the new law. When convicted murderers are sentenced to 14 years maximum, it's a fair assumption some will be paroled earlier. The handwriting is on the wall. California now has a catch and release program for murderers.

 

[Auntie Cipation]

Meanwhile, the Settler case seems to give us a clue as to the "protection" afforded by first degree murder prosecutions under the new law. When convicted murderers are sentenced to 14 years maximum, it's a fair assumption some will be paroled earlier. The handwriting is on the wall. California now has a catch and release program for murderers.

I may be misunderstanding, but are you saying that 14 years is the maximum (barring special circumstances, presumably) that a first degree murder conviction may bring now in California? Or only in the specific group circumstances discussed at the beginning of the thread?