Whether California violates the Equal Protection Clause and Eighth Amendment by imposing a harsher maximum sentence on kidnapper-extortionists than on similarly situated kidnapper-robbers

QUESTION PRESENTED In California, a defendant who commits kidnapping for extortion, causes bodily harm to the victim, and does so in the absence of a ransom scheme or a secondary victim is subject to a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. Cal. Pen. Code § 209(a). In contrast, a defendant who commits kidnapping for robbery under otherwise identical circumstances is subject to a maximum sentence of life in prison with the possibility of parole. Cal. Pen. Code §209(b)(1). As a result, similarly situated and kidnapper-robbers are subject to significantly disparate sentencing schemes in California. This case presents the following questions: L. Whether California violates the Equal Protection Clause by imposing a harsher maximum sentence on harm their victims and who do not target a secondary victim—than it imposes on similarly situated kidnapper-robbers. I. Whether California violates the Eighth Amendment’s proscription against cruel and unusual punishment by imposing a harsher maximum sentence on harm their victims and who do not target a secondary victim—than it imposes on similarly situated kidnapper-robbers. i