Summary of Argument

This court granted review to decide whether Penal Code section 3051 violates the equal protection clauses of the state and federal Constitutions by denying youth offender parole hearings to persons sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) for crimes committed when they were 18 to 25 years of age. As Mr. Hardin demonstrated in his Answering Brief, there is no rational basis for excluding this group from California's parole process when youth offender parole hearings are guaranteed to others who committed similarly serious or violent crimes while the same age, some of whom received sentences "that could be the functional equivalent of a life without parole sentence." (People v. Hardin (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 273, 278.)

As the court below recognized, section 3051 mandates youth parole hearings for persons who committed crimes when they were less than 26 years old because "the distinctive attributes of youth- transitory mental traits and environmental vulnerabilities--which ... mitigate culpability and offer the possibility of growth and change, apply equally to young adults up to age 25." (People v. Hardin, supra, 84 Cal.App.5th at pp. 278-279.) This is true regardless of the crime committed, the charges the district attorney chose to file, or the sentence imposed; it applies equally to persons sentenced to LWOP. As the high court recognized with regard to juveniles, none of these "distinctive (and transitory) mental traits and environmental vulnerabilities . . . is crime-specific.” (Miller v. Alabama (2012) 567 U.S. 460, 473.)

The circumstances of a crime committed by a youthful offender and the sentence imposed do not provide a rational basis for denying the offender an opportunity to show that after decades of incarceration they have changed and deserve a chance to re-enter society. Youth offenders sentenced to LWOP can be rehabilitated.

Young persons sentenced to LWOP will not necessarily pose a threat to public safety for their entire lives. The stories that appear below of youth offenders who were sentenced to LWOP but were released on parole are remarkable. Far from posing a danger to society, they have reformed themselves and are a benefit to society.

Excluding youth offenders from parole hearings also is not necessary to protect public safety because Penal Code section 3051 does not mandate that anyone be released from custody; it provides only an opportunity for people to appear before the Board of Parole Hearings and attempt to show that after decades in prison they are rehabilitated and their release on parole would not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to the public. Nobody is released through California’s discretionary parole process unless they can demonstrate they have insight into their past tragic decisions and have a solid plan to safely navigate a return to the community.

People like Mr. Hardin who were sentenced to LWOP for crimes committed when they were 25 years old or younger have the same capacity to be rehabilitated and transform their lives as other youthful offenders. There is empirical evidence that young people sentenced to LWOP can change and, if given the chance for parole, can safely be returned to society and prove to be a benefit to their communities.

Human Rights Watch interviewed 110 men and women who were freed following a sentence of LWOP. Some of their stories are detailed in the recent publication, “ ‘I Just Want to Give Back’ – The Reintegration of People Sentenced to Life Without Parole.” These accounts reveal that people who committed a crime described by a special circumstance before they turned 26 years old are often just as capable of rehabilitation as other 18 to 25-year-olds sentenced to parole- eligible life sentences. People change, especially young people, sometimes in astounding ways.

Many of these men and women have accomplished remarkable things since gaining their freedom. Nearly 80 percent were working at least 20 hours a week, 30 were taking college courses, 3 had earned an associate degree, 6 had completed a bachelor’s degree, several earned master’s degrees, and one has started a PhD program. What’s more, nearly all had embraced public service. Ninety-four percent had volunteered with charities, community groups, or nonprofit organizations following their release, some rising to leadership roles.

All of these people had been subjected to California’s discretionary parole gauntlet, which is designed to test a parole candidate’s growth and rehabilitation. The criteria for evaluating parole candidates are well-developed and include considering the facts of the crime and receiving input from the victim(s) of the crime.

The personal stories that appear below demonstrate what the California Legislature realized in creating youth offender parole; the character and minds of young people are not fixed; they are malleable and immature and uniquely capable of change. This is true regardless of the circumstances of the crime or the sentence imposed. Even young people who have committed the most heinous of crimes are capable of extraordinary transformations.

In enacting section 3051, the Legislature chose to focus on rehabilitative transformation—not the crime. As a result, there is no rational basis for denying individuals who were sentenced to LWOP for crimes they committed when they were 18 to 25 years of age the opportunity to demonstrate that, after decades of incarceration, they have earned the right to be considered for release on parole.

Summary of Argument

This case examines the constitutionality of Penal Code section 3051, which denies youth offender parole hearings to individuals sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) for crimes committed between the ages of 18 and 25. The argument presented contends that this exclusion violates the equal protection clauses of the state and federal Constitutions.

The court acknowledges that section 3051 guarantees youth parole hearings for offenders under the age of 26, recognizing the unique characteristics of youth that mitigate culpability and offer potential for rehabilitation. These characteristics, such as immature mental states and susceptibility to environmental influences, are not crime-specific and apply equally to young adults up to age 25.

The circumstances of the crime or the sentence imposed do not provide a rational basis for denying youth offenders sentenced to LWOP the opportunity to demonstrate rehabilitation and eligibility for re-entry into society. Empirical evidence suggests that these individuals have the capacity for transformative change.

Moreover, the parole process under Penal Code section 3051 does not mandate release but provides an opportunity for individuals to present evidence of rehabilitation and prove that their release would not pose an unreasonable risk to public safety. The rigorous evaluation process includes consideration of the crime and input from victims.

The personal narratives of former LWOP inmates who have been released on parole demonstrate the transformative potential of youth offenders. These individuals have made significant contributions to society, engaging in employment, education, and community service. Their successful reintegration is a testament to the malleability and capacity for growth inherent in young people.

The Legislature's focus on rehabilitation in enacting section 3051 highlights the irrationality of denying parole hearings to youth offenders sentenced to LWOP for crimes committed between 18 and 25. There is no rational basis for excluding this group from the opportunity to demonstrate their eligibility for release after decades of incarceration, as they possess the same potential for transformation as other youth offenders.

Summary of Argument

The court is considering whether it is fair to deny parole hearings to individuals who were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole (LWOP) for crimes they committed between the ages of 18 and 25. The argument is that there is no logical reason to treat this group differently from other youth offenders who committed similar crimes and received sentences that could amount to life in prison.

According to the court, all youth offenders, regardless of their crime or sentence, share certain characteristics that make them less responsible for their actions and more likely to change for the better. These characteristics include immaturity, impulsivity, and susceptibility to peer pressure. Because these traits apply equally to young adults up to age 25, it is argued that they should also be eligible for parole hearings.

The circumstances of a crime or the sentence imposed do not change the fact that youthful offenders have the potential for rehabilitation. Studies have shown that even those who commit serious crimes can change and become valuable members of society if given the chance for parole.

Furthermore, parole hearings do not guarantee release from prison. They simply provide an opportunity for individuals to show that they have changed and are no longer a danger to society. The parole board carefully considers factors such as the nature of the crime and the offender's behavior in prison before making a decision.

Evidence suggests that people who were sentenced to LWOP as youth offenders can successfully reintegrate into society. Interviews with over 100 such individuals revealed that many of them have made remarkable achievements after their release, including finding employment, pursuing higher education, and contributing to their communities through volunteer work.

These stories demonstrate the transformative power of youth and the importance of giving even those who have committed serious crimes the opportunity to prove that they have changed and deserve a second chance.

In conclusion, there is no rational basis for denying parole hearings to youth offenders who were sentenced to LWOP. They have the same capacity for rehabilitation as other youth offenders, and empirical evidence suggests that they can become productive members of society if given the chance for parole.

Summary of Argument

The court is deciding if it's fair to deny parole hearings to people who were sentenced to life in prison without the chance of parole (LWOP) for crimes they did when they were 18 to 25 years old. Mr. Hardin, who is serving an LWOP sentence, argues that there's no good reason why his group should be treated differently from other young people who committed serious crimes.

The law says that people who committed crimes when they were under 26 should get parole hearings because young people have the potential to change and grow. This applies to all young people, regardless of their crime or sentence. Just like teenagers, young adults have certain mental traits and life experiences that can make them act in ways they later regret.

Even though some young people commit terrible crimes, they can still change for the better. Young people sentenced to LWOP have the same potential to turn their lives around as other young offenders. Studies show that people who were sentenced to LWOP can change and become valuable members of society if given the chance.

There are stories of people who were sentenced to LWOP as young adults and have been released on parole. They have gone on to do amazing things like getting jobs, going to college, and helping others in their communities. These stories show that even people who have committed serious crimes can turn their lives around and deserve a second chance.

The parole process is strict and only releases people who have shown that they have changed and are not a danger to society. By denying parole hearings to young adults sentenced to LWOP, we are saying that they can never change, no matter how much time they spend in prison. This is not only unfair but also goes against what we know about the potential for young people to grow and change.

Summary of Argument

Some people who were sentenced to life in prison without the chance of parole were young when they committed their crimes. They were between 18 and 25 years old. The law says that people who committed crimes when they were under 26 should have a chance at parole because their brains are still developing and they can change. But the law doesn't give this chance to young people sentenced to life without parole.

This doesn't make sense because young people who committed serious crimes can change and become better people. Even if they did something really bad, they still have the chance to learn from their mistakes and make a positive contribution to society.

There are stories of young people who were sentenced to life without parole but were later released because they showed that they had changed. They are now working, going to school, and helping others. This shows that young people can turn their lives around, even if they have done something terrible.

The law should give young people sentenced to life without parole a chance to prove that they have changed and deserve to be released. It's not fair to keep them locked up forever without giving them a chance to show that they are not the same person they were when they committed their crime.