Proposals for Changes to the California Juvenile Justice System

Protection of Confidentiality of Juveniles

Some arguments in favor of relaxing restrictions were the following.

1. The public would be more supportive of the juvenile court system if they had access to the proceedings.

2. Victims of a particular crime should be able to participate in the hearing of the accused.

3. Information about a conviction should be available to the school district and law enforcement officials where the juvenile resides after the conviction.

Those on the Task Force supporting the present restrictions argued the following:

1. Sometimes an accused youngster is the victim of sexual or physical abuse. If the public were present at the hearing, the revelation of the abuse could be even more traumatizing to the young person. Often the social worker or probation officer who learns of the abuse does not have the chance to adequately warn the judge of the sensitive nature of the testimony.

2. Some juveniles take pride in their "accomplishments" and would be pleased to see their names in print or members of their community present. This would reinforce the errant behavior.

3. The presence in the courtroom of fellow gang members of the victim could lead to violent reprisals.

4. If the press were allowed to cover juvenile court, there could be more sensationalizing of juvenile crime and violence. Press presence could affect the proceedings.

Issues:

1. Should juvenile court proceedings be confidential?

2. Should the records be permanently sealed (upon request) or automatically reviewed periodically by the courts; or opened for public access at the age of maturity?

3. Should juvenile records be available in certain circumstances or to schools, law enforcement, adult courts, employers or social service agencies?

4. Should the juvenile court be open under certain circumstances or to certain individuals?

Remand of Juveniles to Adult Court

Currently the minimum age for remand to adult court is 14 for the crime of murder in California. <61>

Pedro Noguero notes that: " ...treating juvenile offenders as adults does little to deter violence since there is no evidence that perpetrators logically think through the consequences of their actions prior to carrying them out." <62>

Issues:

1. Should the age, severity of crime, prior criminal behavior, and possibility of treatment be considered by a Juvenile Court judge at a fitness hearing?

2. Should the juvenile be remanded to adult court for certain serious crimes?

Death Penalty for Minors

The death penalty for juveniles is specifically prohibited in three international treaties or resolution (1949, signed and ratified by the United States, 1966 and 1970, signed but not ratified by the U. S.). It is further prohibited by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which had been ratified by 168 nations by the end of 1994, but not by the U. S. Between 1642 and 1899, 95 young people, age 10 to 17, were put to death. From 1900 to 1991, there were 196 juvenile executions. In 1991 36 juveniles were sitting on death row across the country. <63> Some states are considering lowering the age for the death penalty to 14 and 15 years of age.

Issues:

1. Is the death penalty appropriate for juveniles who commit a crime punishable by death if committed by an adult?

2. If so, at what age? 16 years of age and above, or from 14 to 17 years of age?
   

Juvenile Incarceration with Adults

Forty-two jurisdictions require or permit juveniles remanded to adult court for trial to betransferred to an adult facility, pending trial, even though no criminal trial may take place or the juvenile may be acquitted at trial. Juveniles in adult court are five times more likely to be sexually assaulted, twice as likely to be beaten by staff and 50 percent more likely to be attacked with a weapon than youths in a juvenile facility. Studies also show that counseling programs, efforts to improve family relations, and medical care are much lower in adult corrections than in juvenile institutions. "The social costs of imprisoning young offenders in adult facilities may be paid in later crime and violence upon their release." <64>

Issue:

1. Should juveniles in California be incarcerated with adults?
   

The California District Attorneys Association (CDAA)

In re-evaluating the effectiveness of the Juvenile Justice system, the CDAA concluded that many resources are spent on hardened criminals with little chance of rehabilitation at the expense of impressionable youths who could benefit from active, early intervention. To streamline the juvenile court process, reduce the role of the probation officer and increase that of the prosecutor, and other changes they deemed helpful, the CDAA make the following recommendations:

1. Allow the prosecutor to eliminate the fitness hearing and file directly in adult court when a juvenile, 14 or older, is accused of a crime serious enough to remand him/her to adult court.
   

2. Use informal probation (without a court appearance) only for first-time offenders of mis-demeanor offenses. Juveniles who commit felonies or second misdemeanor offense would automatically go to court.
   

3. Amend the present requirement that a judge must choose between dependency or delinquency status for a dependent of the court (e.g., foster child) who has committed a crime. Now, if a judge imposes a consequence for the crime, the juvenile loses dependency services until out of custody.
   

4. Permit the law enforcement agency to refer a case to the District Attorney without investigation by the probation department if the charges would make the accused eligible for remand to adult court .
   

5. Allow the court to issue a warrant for the arrest of a minor who does not appear in court because his/her whereabouts are unknown, rather than requiring efforts at personal service.
   

6. Allow the public to attend proceedings of juvenile court and give greater access to juvenile court records. <65>

Los Angeles County District Attorney's Recommendations

The Los Angeles County Juvenile Court has the highest caseload in California. The Los Angeles District Attorney has suggested ways to restructure the juvenile court system to respond to pressures at both ends of the spectrum. The plan, known as the Garcetti Plan, includes:

1. An informal court for misdemeanor offenders and status offenders, with no attorneys, modeled after the traffic court. The court must make a decision within 30 days. New elements would include victim participation, parent accountability, contempt of court citation as a remedy for failure to complete the probation terms.
   

2. The existing juvenile court with direct filing by the District Attorney without Probation Department review. Changes would be: more police decision-making, parental responsibility with civil judgments, more public awareness through less-restrictive confidentiality rules, and an automatic remand to adult court without a fitness hearing for designated offenses.
   

3. Adult court would become the original jurisdiction based on an age/crime matrix. Murder and certain other offenses, considered to be serious danger to public safety, would not have fitness transfer hearings, but immediately be filed in adult court. The judge would have discretion to sentence offenders as juveniles and send them to the California Youth Authority. <66>

Issues:

1. Direct filing in adult court eliminates the opportunity and expense for a fitness hearing. The nature of the crime would be the determining factor. At present the minor's criminal history, his prior detention, and individual possibility for rehabilitation are factors considered by the judge in a fitness hearing. Should the nature of the crime overshadow the possibility of future treatment of juvenile court? Automatic filing does not allow for exceptions to the rule.

Previous section. Juvenile Justice in California: Facts & Issues TOC. Next section.