Enacts "Jacob Freytes' law"

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why Stephen T. Chan says this is needed

The intentional or reckless taking of a child's life is an unforgivable act that demands the absolute maximum penalty under the law. When an individual intentionally or recklessly takes the life of a child under the age of eighteen, the law must respond with the strongest possible punishment: life without parole. Anything less would fail to reflect the moral gravity of the offense, the devastation inflicted on the victim's family, and the terror imposed on the surrounding community. New York State holds a vital and compelling interest in protecting its youth from lethal violence. Jacob Freytes was only twelve years old when he was shot and killed in an exchange of gunfire while riding his bicy- cle near a neighborhood Bronx bodega, leaving his family shattered and a community devastated. Violent crime warrants heightened scrutiny and stronger accountability. New Yorkers are tired of seeing innocent children become collateral damage to violent criminals. The State's criminal justice system must exist not only to rehabilitate, but to punish criminals and draw a hard line against the most abhorrent conduct. A mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole for these crimes sends an unmistakable message: those who murder children will never again walk free. PRIOR LEGISLA I IVE HISTORY: New bill.

This is the sponsor's own case for the bill, quoted from their memorandum. It is not Agora's description of what the bill does.