Dear Governor Lujan Grisham:

We are the National Organization of Victims of Juvenile Murderers. We represent about 400 victims around the country, including many in New Mexico. We write to explain why we oppose Senate Bill 64. We were not involved in the drafting of SB 64 and over the last couple of years, we have largely been disregarded by juvenile offender supporters. We appreciate your consideration and we hope to work toward a compromise that preserves justice and victim rights.  Below is a list of concerns regarding SB 64. 

SB 64 Would Reward New Mexico’s Most Violent Felons

SB 64 advocates argue that juvenile offenders deserve a break because their brains are not fully developed and because juveniles are generally more impulsive, immature, and susceptible to peer pressure and are less likely to appreciate the consequences of their actions.

NOVJM recognizes that many adolescents make immature mistakes due to their young brains and cause harm they did not intend. But these kinds of youthful indiscretions do not result in long prison sentences. The violent offenders who would benefit from SB 64  were not immature kids who made mistakes. Rather, they committed horrific crimes of which they fully understood the wrongfulness. Below is a list of just some of the potential beneficiaries of SB 64. 

• Nathaniel Jouett went on a shooting rampage at the Clovis Carver Library. He murdered librarians Wanda Walters and Kristina Carter. And he injured 4 other people, including a 10-year-old boy. Witnesses reported that Jouett laughed and smiled as he shot up the library. 
• John Gamble tricked Joseph Garcia into coming to a secluded area outside of town where he murdered him. Gamble tried to shoot Joseph but could not get the gun to fire. So he beat Joseph with the rifle stock until it broke off. He poured gasoline on Joseph’s body and set him ablaze. Gamble then returned to a party he had attended previously that day. Gamble also bragged about the murder to his friends.
• Nehemiah Griego fatally shot his parents and three younger siblings in their home. He first shot his mother with a .22 caliber rifle as she slept. He then showed his mother’s dead body to his nine-year-old brother before shooting him in the head as well. Griego then visited the bedroom of his younger sisters, ages five and two. He shot both children in the head. The murderer then went downstairs and waited for his father to return home. When his father returned, Griego shot him multiple times with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle with a scope. Griego then reloaded the weapons and intended to drive to an area to shoot more people.
• Arnell VanDuyne brutally murdered his adoptive mother, Norma Young. According to prosecutors, VanDuyne told police he was angry at Norma for telling him to clean out his dresser and then checking and telling him he wasn’t doing it right. He attacked Norma--who provided daycare in her home--as she played with young children. VanDuyne tied Norma's hands behind her back, tried to rape her, and then beat her with the bat. The crime was witnessed by six young children. Three weeks before the murder, Norma had persuaded authorities to release VanDuyne from the New Mexico Boy’s School, where he had been held on a probation violation for stealing the Youngs’ car. 
• Juan Rivas invaded Clara Alvarez’s home and murdered her. Clara was an 83-year-old woman who lived alone. In the early morning hours, Rivas snuck into her backyard, where he remained for an hour. During that hour, Rivas searched for an entry point into the house and made a weapon with a stick. Rivas broke into Clara’s house and attacked her as she slept, stabbing her multiple times with the stick and a knife from her kitchen. After determining she was dead, he drove away with her car. He returned to Clara’s house multiple times over the next couple of days to dispose of her body. 
• Darcy Smith, along with her co-defendants, decided to "scare the hell out of someone." Their victim was Adam Price, a 17-year-old high school senior. They kidnapped him at gunpoint from an area near the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque. The kidnappers took Adam on a drive of terror. They stopped a short distance from the Bernardo exit of Interstate 25 and forced Adam out of the car. One kidnapper beat Adam and shot him twice with a .44 revolver. After Adam fell to the ground, Smith shot him twice with a 9-millimeter handgun. After shooting him, Smith picked up one of the spent casings from her gun to take as a souvenir. Smith was reportedly excited about the shooting and “hyped” during the ride back to Albuquerque.

Rewarding depraved and dangerous murderers, rapists, and other violent felons based on their birthdays would be a miscarriage of justice.

The brain development argument is deeply flawed.  Yes, adolescents’ brains are not fully developed. But one does not need a fully developed brain to understand the wrongfulness of obviously egregious crimes, such as those listed above. Whether or not to murder an innocent person isn’t a morally complex decision. 

The argument that juvenile offenders deserve a break because of common adolescent traits--susceptibility to peer pressure, impulsivity, immaturity, recklessness, and so on--is also flawed. Yes, juveniles generally display these characteristics. But not all juveniles are the same. Some juvenile offenders act alone, rather than under peer pressure. Some juvenile offenders commit extensively planned crimes, rather than acting impulsively. Some juvenile offenders fully appreciate the consequences of their actions. Juvenile offenders should not be painted with one broad brush. An offender’s sentence should be based on their specific actions, not the general traits common among others in their age group.

SB 64 Would Harm Survivors

SB 64 would harm victims by requiring parole eligibility after only 15 years for most juvenile offenders, including many murderers. 

The parole process is very traumatizing for victims. Mental health conditions such as anxiety, depression, and PTSD flare up. They relive the worst experiences of their lives, leading them to suffer nightmares, flashbacks, and panic attacks. For many victims, the release of the assailant is not only an injustice, but a potential danger. Many victims fear retaliation and justifiably so–perpetrators do sometimes hunt down victims and retaliate against them. Victims’ understandable fear of the offenders is indescribable. Victims will speak up at traumatizing parole hearings to prevent the injustice and danger of parole.

SB 43 proponents insist that the bill only guarantees parole hearings, not release. But we must remember that even if an offender is not released, the parole hearings will still inflict tremendous suffering upon victims. Furthermore, parole is a possible outcome of a parole hearing. Guaranteeing the possibility of parole is bad enough for survivors. 

Moreover, 15 years is not proportionate to many crimes. For many violent offenses, a decade and a half is grossly lenient. When an offender receives a grossly lenient sentence, their crimes are demeaned and their victims are devalued. 

It is simply not good policy to require some of New Mexico’s most violent criminals to have a chance to obtain freedom in their early 30s and enjoy decades outside prison.  

SB 64 Goes Against U.S. Supreme Court Rulings

The U.S. Supreme Court has never found life without parole to be unconstitutional for all juvenile offenders. Here are the U.S. Supreme Court rulings on life without parole for juvenile offenders. 

• In Graham v. Florida, SCOTUS ruled that juveniles cannot receive life without parole for non-homicide crimes.
• In Miller v. Alabama, SCOTUS banned mandatory juvenile life without parole. In Miller, SCOTUS held that a sentencing authority must consider a juvenile killer’s youth before sentencing them to life without parole.
• In Jones v. Mississippi, SCOTUS ruled that a sentencing authority is not required to find a juvenile offender to be permanently incorrigible before sentencing them to life without parole.

Conclusion

SB 64 would have a devastating impact on many survivors. It would force them to relive the violent crimes that destroyed their lives. It would also put many at risk of retaliation. And it would demean crimes committed against them. Moreover, we had no say in the drafting of this bill. We need legislation that actually considers victims. SB 64 fails in this regard. 

Thank you for your attention. 

Sincerely,

NOVJM