A new bill making its way through the California legislature would release hundreds of murderers, rapists, and other violent offenders from California prisons – and almost no one is talking about it.
Introduced by Democrat state Senator Susan Rubio, SB 672, the “Youth Rehabilitation and Opportunity Act,” would let most people sentenced to life without parole for crimes committed at age 25 or younger become eligible for a parole hearing after just 25 years. The measure cleared the Senate this week and now moves to the Assembly for further debate.
Proponents, including Rubio, argue the bill “gives young people whose lives were often shaped by trauma and instability a real chance at redemption.” Critics, however, call it a way for violent offenders to escape full accountability.
Roughly 1,600 inmates could become newly eligible for parole review under the law, which requires parole hearings by Jan. 1, 2028. While the most egregious offenders, such as mass shooters, killers of law enforcement, and those convicted of violent sex crimes are excluded, most violent offenders would still be eligible. Far from other criminal justice “reform” bills that target nonviolent offenders, this bill is aimed squarely at some of the most vicious criminals behind bars.
The legislation has sparked outcry from law enforcement, prosecutors, and victims’ advocates.
Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer said SB 672 “would allow more than 1,600 cold-blooded killers who were sentenced to life without the possibility of parole to be eligible for parole after just 25 years because they committed their crimes before they turned 26.”
Spitzer cited the example of Sam Woodward, sentenced for the 2018 hate-motivated murder of Blaze Bernstein, as someone who could one day seek parole under the legislation.
Victims’ families remain divided. Lauren Pettigrew, whose brother was murdered in 2007, called the bill “offensive.”
“It’s really traumatizing for victims like me, the idea of spending the rest of my life going to parole hearings for three separate people, because that never ends,” Pettigrew told ABC10.
Meanwhile, Sonia Spencer, whose child was killed in a 1995 home invasion, supports SB 672. “Those who have done the work have a chance at parole. Those who have not, will not be found eligible,” she said.
Supporters of the bill lean heavily on neuroscientific research showing brain development, especially impulse control, continues into a person’s mid-20s. They argue the bill extends earlier reforms and aligns with Supreme Court precedent recognizing diminished culpability among younger offenders.
But as critics have pointed out, just because someone’s brain might not be “fully developed” from a scientific perspective in their mid-twenties, that should not absolve them of full responsibility for their crimes.
SB 672 stands as part of a broader trend in the Golden State of granting more and more leniency to criminals – resulting in higher and higher crime rates. Over the past decade, California has steadily moved away from mandatory minimums and tough sentencing laws in favor of “rehabilitation” – a trend that many critics say has brought troubling consequences for public safety.
It began with AB 109 in 2011, which shifted responsibility for certain nonviolent offenders from state prisons to county jails. While aimed at reducing state prison overcrowding, this realignment strained local resources and shifted the burden onto communities.
Proposition 47, passed in 2014, reclassified many theft and drug offenses from felonies to misdemeanors. This downgrade lowered penalties and resulted in more offenders being released early, sending a wave of repeat offenders back onto the streets.
Proposition 57, approved in 2016, expanded parole eligibility for nonviolent offenders and allowed inmates to earn credits for rehabilitation efforts, further shortening incarceration times.
Youth sentencing reforms, such as SB 260 (2013) and SB 261 (2015), established and expanded parole hearings for offenders who committed crimes before age 18 and later age 23, respectively. AB 1308 (2017) further extended eligibility to age 25.
These laws reflect a growing trend of treating young adults as less culpable, often sparking debate over public safety vs. rehabilitation.
SB 1437, enacted in 2018, limited felony murder liability and opened the door for resentencing, rolling back harsh sentences for many serious crimes.
More recently, 2022’s SB 731 created a comprehensive record-sealing system designed to help formerly incarcerated individuals reintegrate into society. While well-intentioned, critics warn this reduces transparency and may hinder public safety efforts.
SB 672 did not appear in a vacuum – it is part of a troubling political trend toward “infantilization,” treating adults in their twenties as if they lack the judgment and accountability expected of grown men and women. Society and the law have long recognized 18 as the start of adulthood – the age to vote, enlist in the military, sign contracts, and, until now, face adult criminal penalties.
Public safety depends on personal responsibility. Treating 25-year-olds like children not only undermines personal agency, it also sends a dangerous message to young adults that they are not responsible for their actions.
Sarah Katherine Sisk is a proud Hillsdale College alumna and a master’s student in economics at George Mason University. You can follow her on X @SKSisk76.
Read full article here