What if the rest of your life were determined by a decision you made when you were 16 years old? For Cyntoia Brown, that scenario is a reality. When she was 16 years old, she murdered a man who would have forced her into prostitution. Now Cyntoia is locked up for the rest of her life, with no possibility for parole.
California SB 9 would give the 300 inmates in California who were given life sentences when they were children, many with stories like Cyntoia's, a second chance. SB 9 would allow these young adults to petition the court for a review of their sentence after serving 10 years behind bars.
Serious crimes committed by children are often brought about by extreme circumstances. Many children sentenced to life without parole grew up in an abusive or neglectful environment that contributed to their crime.
Furthermore, research shows that a teenager's brain is still developing well into their early twenties. (Everyone knows a surly high school student who turned out just fine later in life.) So a kid who was easily persuaded to be an accomplice in a convenience store robbery will naturally improve their self-control and decision-making skills just by getting older. The facts show that a hot-tempered child can turn into a rational-minded adult.
SB 9 wouldn't free any inmates. It wouldn't even guarantee them parole.  But it would give them a chance to rise above a single terrible decision that would otherwise determine the course of their lives. So people like Cyntoia Brown-- whom one college professor said "could be a gifted litigator"-- could get a shot at fulfilling some of their potential.
You should take action today: Ask your Assembly member to support California SB 9.
 
Clarissa Woo is the Director of Policy Advocacy at the ACLU/SC.

We warned you that the federal government had gotten into the snake-oil business with Secure Communities (S-Comm). Turns out that the actual purpose of S-Comm was just part of the story. The federal government also misled state and local governments, as well as the public, about whether or not the program was voluntary. Federal judge Shira A. Scheindlin ordered the release of the hundreds of internal S-Comm documents, remarking,

“… ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] and DHS [Department of Homeland Security] have gone out of their way to mislead the public about Secure Communities. In particular, these agencies have failed to acknowledge a shift in policy when it is patently obvious -– from public documents and statements –- that there has been one.”

The documents show government officials doing back flips to avoid answering a simple question: is S-Comm participation mandatory for local governments? In one email released under the judge’s order, an S-Comm employee criticized the public message around Secure Communities:

“We never address whether or not it is mandatory –- the answer is written to sound like it is but doesn’t state it… It’s very convoluted –- or is that the point?”

Whether the program is mandatory or not became a critical question when more and more local governments began to opt out of the program.
Now, of course, the federal government has finally come clean: it doesn't actually care that S-Comm undermines the public's trust in local law enforcement, or that local governments across the country reject S-Comm. The federal government negotiated agreements with governors across the country to authorize states’ participation in S-Comm, which would lead one to believe that states had a choice whether to participate.
The Obama administration has now voided those agreements, as it prepares to implement S-Comm in every city, county, and state in the nation by 2013.
Unless we take action. Tell the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to oppose S-Comm by only referring to immigration authorities those who pose a threat to our communities.
Hector Villagra is the Executive Director of the ACLU/SC.

 

Fullerton has started to get it right.  The city has hired an independent consultant to investigate the death of Kelly Thomas.  This decision shows the city understands that the investigation must not only be independent but also go beyond -- far beyond -- potential criminality. It needs, for instance, to address how the police department trains officers to identify and deal with mentally ill and homeless persons, and how it investigates instances of alleged excessive force.  Many questions need to be answered, and we hope and expect that the independent investigator will be vested with the full authority and resources to answer them.
The investigation of police conduct is fundamentally about public accountability.  The citizens of Fullerton have vested their police officers with the power to carry and use weapons and to employ deadly force in their service to society.  But the citizens must trust that their officers will use that power responsibly, and that trust -- maintaining that trust -- requires a meaningful system of accountability.
So, if Fullerton wants to get it completely right, it should establish a civilian review board.  A full and independent investigation should occur as a matter of course in cases like this; it should not depend on the public outcry or the request of a city official.  Citizens are entitled to an ongoing mechanism to oversee police practices, not just a one-time response to a high profile incident.
Hector Villagra is the Executive Director of the ACLU/SC.