|
|
State Supreme Court upholds Proposition 21
The California Supreme Court on February 28, 2002 upheld a challenge to
Proposition 21, which gives the state's prosecutors wide latitude in
transferring youth to criminal court for prosecution. With only one dissenting
vote, the court rejected arguments that Proposition 21violated separation of
powers principles, as well as due process of law.
The Supreme Court's decision was made despite numerous briefs filed by advocacy organizations about the constitutionality of the state's law, including a brief filed by the Juvenile Law Center, Youth Law Center, the Children's Defense Fund, The Child Welfare League of America, the National Council of La Raza, the National Mental Health Association, the National Urban League, and the Sentencing Project. The brief argued that Proposition 21 would result in racial disparities in the application of the law adversely affecting youth of color, would not reduce crime or increase public safety, and would result in serious harm to youth prosecuted under the new law. The brief states that, "The overwhelming weight of research shows that increased prosecution of juveniles in criminal court does nothing to increase public safety and disproportionately harms young offenders. Proposition 21 will only serve to exacerbate the problem of racial disparities in the justice system for youth of color."
Juvenile Justice advocates expressed outrage at the court's decision. "The studies are showing that kids who come out of the adult system are not only brutalized but come out and commit offenses that occur sooner, are more serious and are more frequent than those coming out of the juvenile justice system," says Bob Schwartz, President of the Juvenile Law Center.
"There can be little question that the decision to try a juvenile as an adult mostly rises or falls on sentencing issues -- like the youth's prior behavior, amenability to treatment, and the seriousness of this offense -- as opposed to evidentiary ones, and therefore is most properly the purview of the judicial branch," stated Vincent Schiraldi, President of the Justice Policy Institute. "For the California Supreme Court to rule that prosecutors and prosecutors alone get to make that decision puts the sentencing decision almost wholly on the prosecutor's side of the adversarial ledger. In the final analysis, that will mean that we will give up on more and more young people by consigning them to lengthy imprisonment with adults. That's not only bad for the young people, it's bad for all of the rest of us, as they emerge from adult prisons as less functional members of society."
To obtain press articles, visit:
To obtain the amicus brief filed by the Youth Law Center, Juvenile Law Center, Children's Defense Fund, The Child Welfare League of America, the National Council of La Raza, the National Mental Health Association, the National Urban League, and the Sentencing Project, visit: http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/statebystate/brief.html