Summary#
S-10691, “Jacob Freytes’ law,” would amend New York’s Penal Law sections 125.25 and 70.00. Its stated goal is to make recklessly causing the death of someone under 18 a form of second-degree murder and to set severe sentences for certain deaths of minors. The bill was introduced in the Senate and referred to Rules; it is not law.
- A person would be guilty of second-degree murder if they recklessly caused the death of someone under 18. The bill does not set a minimum age for the person accused.
- A person convicted of second-degree murder for causing the death of someone under 18 would have to be sentenced to life in prison without parole.
- The bill would also require life without parole for every form of aggravated murder under Penal Law section 125.26. The text now requires that sentence for one form and allows it for another.
- The bill does not create a new agency, application process, or front-line service. It changes criminal offences and sentencing rules.
What it means for you#
- People accused or convicted: The new offence could apply when someone recklessly causes the death of a person under 18. A conviction would require life in prison without parole.
- People convicted of aggravated murder: Life without parole would become mandatory for all aggravated murder under section 125.26, rather than only the form currently described as requiring it.
- People under 18 when a crime was committed: The bill’s sentencing text also says young defendants may receive an indeterminate sentence with a maximum of life. It does not explain how that provision would fit with the new mandatory sentences.
- Everyone else: The bill does not directly change taxes, fees, or benefits.
Money#
No cost estimate is provided. No publicly available information.
- The bill would require life-without-parole sentences in the cases it names, but the materials give no estimate of added prison costs or other savings.
What is unclear#
- The bill does not define “recklessly.” The supplied materials do not include the broader Penal Law provisions that may explain that term.
- The text does not explain how its mandatory sentences would interact with the provision allowing an indeterminate sentence for a person who was 17 or younger when the crime occurred.
- The supplied materials do not include the full current Penal Law, so the existing rules and the bill’s changes could not be independently checked against the current law.
- No fiscal estimate or information about prison costs is provided.
Case for#
- The bill appears intended to treat reckless deaths of people under 18 as murder, not as a lesser offence.
- A possible argument for the bill is that a mandatory life-without-parole sentence sets a clear, severe consequence for the specified deaths.
- Extending mandatory life without parole to all forms of aggravated murder would make the sentence consistent across the section’s offences.
Case against#
- A mandatory life-without-parole sentence would leave no sentencing choice for a judge in the cases covered, even if circumstances differ.
- The bill does not explain how “recklessly” would apply to the new offence or how prosecutors and courts would distinguish it from other offences.
- The bill’s youth-sentencing provisions appear to point in different directions: one allows an indeterminate sentence for young defendants, while another requires life without parole in specified cases.
- The bill gives no estimate of the costs of requiring more life-without-parole sentences.