Even in this era of widespread “catch and release” justice, sometimes a court decision seems so outrageous as to attract attention. I am referring to the recent sentencing of two young men, aged 21 and 18, for the brutal attack on an elderly homeless man in Arroyo Grande that resulted in permanent brain damage.
The attack was unprovoked, cruel, and unrestrained. The 68-year-old victim was sleeping in a park when the defendants came across him. Apparently bored and seeking amusement, one chose to urinate on him, and after he awakened to the deluge, began to punch and kick him. Soon, the other defendant joined in, and they together punched and kicked him, including kicks to the head. The enthusiasm with which they delivered this attack resulted in the victim’s blood splattering their shoes and hands, as they laughed and congratulated each other with “high fives” for their brave exploits against the helpless victim, according to the SLO County District Attorney’s Office.
In a Gen Z twist, they recorded the attack and posted it to Snapchat so that their friends could admire their exploits.
The conduct of the defendants was vicious, callous, and devoid of any real excuse. There was no offense given by the victim, nor was it any sort of recognizable act of emotion, rage, or passion, but was merely the infliction of grave injury to obtain personal amusement and to impress others. Repeatedly kicking anyone in the head can easily cause death or grave injury. Anyone who is capable of severely beating and possibly killing a helpless person merely for the fun of it is clearly a dangerously damaged and unsalvageable individual. Like a person who tortures animals for entertainment, their “core” instincts will not change, and they will remain a threat to others, even if seemingly remorseful and apprehensive about punishment for any future crimes.
The sentencing of the defendants shocked even a cynical and hardened public long used to the leniency of our legal system toward violent criminals, as they were sentenced to 364 days in county jail and four years of probation. The maximum term for the crime was seven years in prison, which the district attorney sought. In sentencing, the judge cited youth, a lack of criminal history, and the defendants’ willingness to accept responsibility, according to a press release from the District Attorney’s Office.
Anyone who is capable of severely beating and possibly killing a helpless person merely for the fun of it is clearly a dangerously damaged and unsalvageable individual.
In light of the defendants’ video of their crime and their apparent glee in beating a helpless old man possibly to death, and the blood found on their hands and shoes, I suspect that this “acceptance of responsibility” reflects more the wise advice of their attorneys than any true remorse.
After reading about the inexplicably light sentence for such a serious crime, and the fact that the judge was an appointee of Gavin Newsom, I initially visualized the judge as likely a former criminal defense attorney or someone otherwise favorably disposed toward criminal defendants. I was surprised to learn that the judge had previously been a longtime prosecutor, and someone who is presumably inclined to impose meaningful punishment.
So, what explains this ridiculously light sentence?
Admittedly, I am not familiar with the facts of this case beyond the media reporting. and I realize that the judge is prohibited from publicly responding to criticism. And, having myself served in a judicial role, I realize that sometimes you can be forced to render decisions which offend your own personal views. Still, the incontrovertible guilt and the demonstrated depravity of the defendants’ conduct speaks for itself.
Empathy for the defendants? Imagine yourself in their position. Is there any way that you could ever deliberately inflict such injuries on a helpless, unknown person just for the thrill of it?
Concern for the futures of the defendants? Put yourself in the position of the homeless victim who finds that his permanent brain damage is merely of secondary concern relative to the negative impact of a long prison sentence on the futures of the thugs who attacked him.
You do not have to sentimentalize the homeless as blameless “victims” of the high cost of housing to recognize their humanity and their right to the same protections as anyone.
I am at a loss to understand such a light sentence. Is it having the personal responsibility for directly imposing a harsh punishment? Confronted with a young, frightened defendant whose future is under your control, the temptation to be empathetic and show mercy must be strong.
But empathy should also extend to the victim, and to the likely future victims. The victim has permanent brain injuries. And the defendants, having shown the level of spontaneous cruelty against the helpless that they are capable of, remain dangerous.
The role of a judge is not to be kind and forgiving. It is to impose the often harsh justice that is required to protect the public from dangerous predators and to show victims that their suffering is recognized. Sentencing should be a dispassionate choice considering the law, the crime committed, and the continuing danger of the criminal. The defendants are solely to blame for their situation. ∆
John Donegan is a retired attorney in Pismo Beach who is glad he avoided criminal law. Send a response for publication to letters@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in July 30- August 6, 2026.
I agree that the sentence seemed light compared to the violence of the crime. I’m not a psychiatrist, but it seems like the defendants displayed sociopathic behavior that will not be treated with a year in county jail. But I don’t think six years in prison will do anything but turn them into more hardened criminals. Based on their ages, what they need is a rehab center where there’s an intense focus on trying to change their behavior, which no one wants to spend money on.
A 6 year term might not cure them, but at least society would be safer during that time. And it would make more of an impression on them than a term in county jail measured in days.
It’s a question of what can happen to rehabilitate them during their time of incarceration. The goal should be to reform their behavior, not just to punish them for their despicable act. How do you turn an immoral person into a moral one? My guess is that these two came from bad family situations. Were they on drugs? That’s something for the experts to consider, but I know it takes a lot of time, not just sitting in a cell and interacting with other criminals.
That begs the question “should they ever be released?” People who commit crimes for a coherent, tangible reason like money can be deterred from future crimes by the prospect of punishment, but what about thrill killers and the like? Regardless of how they got to be that way, they are dangerously psychopathic, and I doubt that any government program is capable of turning them into sufficiently controlled people to safely interact with society. Some of our most ruthless killers had a history of increasingly violent crimes, and in retrospect, many people reasonably wonder why they were ever released to continue their predations. I realize that there are real practical and legal issues over locking them up “for the duration”, but I wonder whether there is any alternative available for our current “revolving door” system?
You do not have to sentimentalize the undocumented as blameless “victims” to recognize their humanity, either.
Whether or not they should be released depends on a thorough examination by a forensic psychiatrist or a team of experts.
Going to prison often makes inmates even more hardened criminals.
But leaving them out of prison and free to continue their crimes, makes them more accomplished criminals.
You have no evidence for your conclusion that they will “continue their crimes.”
I always thought the Ludovico technique was a great solution for violent young punks…oh, that’s fictional.
Too bad. It seemed to work well in Clockwork Orange.
Lol.
Steve:
Recognizing an illegal alien trespasser’s “humanity” does negate their obligation to apply for, wait, and stay out of the US until authorized to by our federal government.
I don’t blame anyone living in a failed state for wanting to come to the US, but that still doesn’t negate their requirement to apply for and receive authorization to enter our fatherland, the US. My grandparent’s spilled their blood in WWII to protect our soil.
Agreed. I sympathize with the illegal’s plight, and admire their drive and initiate, but we do not have the ability to support the rest of the world.
“…we do not have the ability to support the rest of the world…” Or ourselves. America first.
My point was that selective outrage against liberal judges and silence about ICE brutality is partisan hypocrisy.
Big difference between helpless sleeping homeless, and thugs who show up to fight with the cops.
“fatherland”?
My Uncle was killed fighting WWII and both he and my father would have been disgusted by such a label. In fact, that entire generation would never call America that.
A semantic quibble.
Maybe not so much for those who fought WWII who had heard both Hitler (das vaterland) or Mussolini (patria) use these terms in the years before the war.
I know the reference. “Blood and soil.”
1984:
” Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. . . . The process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there’s no reason or excuse for committing thought-crime. It’s merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won’t be any need even for that. . . . Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?”
Edit:
* …grandparent’s GENERATION.