Arguments Against Proposition 21

Whether or not we should try juveniles as adults has always been a controversial issue. First of all, “juveniles” are children who fall under the age of 18. However, the legal age varies within certain states across the USA. Despite the age difference, some juveniles are still tried as adults. Does convicting a juvenile as an adult, turn out to be a better problem-solver, and how is this affecting the deterrence of crime?

The exact definition of a juvenile is a “young person” who has yet to reach their 18th birthday. The average life expectancy of someone living in the U.S. is about 79 years old. Proposition 21 requires juveniles to be viewed and tried as adults, including receiving adult punishment such as a life sentence. If a juvenile receives a life sentence before they reach adulthood, more than three-fourths of their life is gone (“California Proposition 21”). Juveniles don’t even have a fully developed brain and as a result, can’t fully understand the circumstances that they find themselves in. Courts must not be given the power to try and sentence juveniles as adults because the environment in adult prisons are for adults, not juveniles, therefore, Proposition 21 should be repealed.

According to crimevictimsunited.org, Measure 11 passed with a two-thirds majority in November of 1994, and was first implemented on April 1st, 1995. While this bill had good intentions there have been, in my opinion, some serious side effects. Before Measure 11 was in place, a judge could look at each case on a case-by-case level. A judge used to have the ability to look at the circumstances that came with each case, and was able to actually judge each case accordingly. However, since judges must follow Measure 11 to the T, that power has been taken away from them. Also, due to this bill, juveniles ages 15 and up can be sentenced under the guidelines of Measure 11. That means that once a teenager turns 15 and commits one of the Measure 11 crimes he or she can be charged as an adult and get a mandatory minimum sentence regardless of their criminal history and the circumstances involved with their case. In reality, this is a “One Strike and You’re Out” approach, which is only adding to our problems.

Unfortunately, juvenile delinquency continued to increase, spiking in the late 1980s and early 1990s. While news headlines touted the juvenile delinquency epidemic, the public became fascinated with the rise of the “juvenile super-predator.” In 1992, frustrated lawmakers, who were determined to end the rise in juvenile delinquency, amended the JJDPA to include USC §5667f. This subsection provided funding for state-operated

The purpose of the following paper is to explain California’s Proposition 21. This writer will explain the pros and cons about this proposition; as well as what voters voted for when they chose “yes” for this proposition. Research will be done in order to explain what the reasoning for Proposition 21, and the changes that occurred when it enacted in the State of California. The following information will be provided as well; prosecution of juveniles in adult court, juvenile incarceration and detention, changes in juvenile probation, juvenile record confidentiality and criminal history, gang provisions, and serious and violent felony offenses. In addition, the following paper will also explain the impact under this proposition

While some individuals feel that exposure to an adult sanction will have a negative effect on the health of juveniles, the major crimes committed by these minors are the same as those committed by their surrounding adult inmates. The threat of adult incarceration will also repel juveniles from committing serious crimes. According to Professor Morgan Reynolds from Texas A&M University, “Between 1980 and 1993 juvenile crime rose alarmingly, and as the states toughened their approach during the 1990s, it declined just as steeply” (2005). In addition, incarceration lowers the chances of reoffending (Schneider cited by Reynolds, 2005). Enforcing laws that discourage juveniles from executing major crimes are effective in reducing crime rates and implementing public safety. Also, those that have already committed severe crimes are less likely to reoffend after exposure to adult sanction. Like Christopher Simmons, juveniles are aware of the crimes they are committing, and may even be proud of their actions. Regardless of the motive, teens committing major offenses should be placed in adult sanctions because their actions are no different than adult offenders. The intimidation of adult detention is successful in both deterring juvenile crime, and appropriately holds minors accountable for their severe offenses.

There are many similarities and differences between the adult and juvenile justice systems. Although juvenile crimes have increased in violence and intensity in the last decade, there is still enough difference between the two legal proceedings, and the behaviors themselves, to keep the systems separated. There is room for changes in each structure. However, we cannot treat/punish juvenile offenders the way we do adult offenders, and vice versa. This much we know. So we have to find a way to merge between the two. And, let’s face it; our juveniles are more important to us in the justice system. They are the group at they

The California Youth Authority which is now known as the California Division of Juvenile Justice has gone through years of criticism. This institution is part of the division of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation that offers several programs such as education, training, and treatment for California’s most serious youth offenders. The California Youth Authority became the go to alternative for the increasing rate of juvenile offenders that committed the most heinous crimes. This institution first opened in 1943 as a reform school, and today it functions similar to adult state prisons. Since that time over thousands of inmates were incarcerated inside of the California Youth Authority. In March of 2000, proposition

Approximately two million adolescents a year are arrested and out of that two million, 60,000 of them are incarcerated according to the American Journal of Public Health. The 60,000 incarcerated adolescents each year are being tried as adults in court because of the serious crimes they have committed. The crimes they have committed are anything from armed robbery to murder. Some juveniles might be first time offenders and others might be repeat offenders. Crimes have always been a major issue in the United States and can cause controversy in the criminal justice system. Charging a minor as an adult in criminal court varies from state to state based on each state’s jurisdiction. Some states consider anyone up to the age of 18 still a juvenile and would not be charged as an adult in criminal court, but other states may charge a juvenile as an adult at the age of 16 or 17. Jordan (2014) states, “Although states already had methods for transferring youth to the adult system, as a result of the growing fear of juvenile violence, most states implemented new laws to increase the number of youth entering the adult criminal system’ (Bernard & Kurlychek, 2010; Torbet et al., 1996)” (p. 315). While it sounds beneficial to incarcerate more adolescents in the adult criminal justice system to avoid juveniles from committing crimes in the future, that is not always the case. Incarcerating these juveniles can be life changing in a negative

In my opinion, New York State’s new policy on criminal responsibility is excellent. The New York State Legislators raised the age of criminal responsibility to eighteen-years-old. The New York State Legislators listened to the public outcry and made this necessary change in policy. The new policy will have a positive impact on teenagers, parents, taxpayers and the New York State’s economy for the next twenty-five years.

Juvenile delinquency has become a controversial issue within the Criminal Justice system. In the United States, juvenile delinquency refers to disruptive and criminal behavior committed by an individual under the age of 18. In many states, a minor at the age of 16 to 17 ½ can be tried as an adult. Once the individual reaches adulthood, the disruptive and criminal behavior is recognized as a crime. However, the criminal justice system has divided juvenile delinquency into two general types of categories that has brought upon controversial issues of inequality and corruption. Yet, putting young individuals in juvenile detentions facilities seems to open the door for them to commit more crimes in the future. Therefore, under certain circumstances juveniles should be tried as an adult.

In addition, think about how they will be affected if tried as an adult and convicted. Let us remember, the United States has the Juvenile Justice System, which is solely for juvenile delinquents. This is supposed to protect them from receiving longer sentences, and harsh punishments, which is the opposite of adult courts. Also, the Juvenile Justice System is supposed to help rehabilitate the juvenile. Luckily, for juveniles, the “court had recognized that even homicide does not warrant a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole if the offender is less than 18 years old at the time of the crime” (Holt p.1395). However, in “Nevada, Mississippi, and Utah, lawmakers now leave it up to the juvenile courts to decide whether to transfer a juvenile to adult court” (Brown p. 21). Unfortunately, juveniles sent to adult prison suffer physically, mentally, and emotionally. With that

Imagine sitting in a courtroom, hoping the the judge will not give a harsh sentence. Unfortunately, that’s the case for many juveniles, some as young as 13! A juvenile is subject to a more severe sentence with the limited sentencing available. It is estimated that 250,000 youth are prosecuted as adults, each year. This number should change, as juveniles are not adults, both mentally and physically. Juveniles need an environment surrounded with guiding adults, education and the resources to help them. A juvenile is not an adult, and should not be tried as one.

By law adolescents are not able to vote, purchase tobacco or alcohol, join the armed forces, or sign a legal contract. Children are not permitted the same rights and responsibilities as adults because the law recognizes their inability to make adult decisions. The law acknowledges that children are unable to handle the consequences that come along with the rights that adults have. By allowing them to be charged as adults is holding them to a double standard. Telling them that they are not old enough to enjoy the same luxuries as adults, but they can experience the same punishment as adults if they commit a crime. The law acknowledged the inability of children to make decisions but still allows them to suffer the same consequences as adults. Research demonstrates that transferring children from juvenile court to adult court does not decrease recidivism, and in fact actually increases crime. Instead of the child learning their mistake they are more likely to repeat it. Juvenile detention centers have programs that help reconstruct young minds and help them realize where they went wrong. Prison does not offer this same opportunity. (Estudillo, Mary Onelia)

Many jurisdictions have responded with so called “get tough” legislation. This type of legislation is a staple in the Crime Control Era that has taken the place of the Juvenile Rights Era, which ended around 1980. One such piece of legislation was Michigan’s Juvenile Waiver Law of 1997. In Michigan, prior to 1988, seventeen year-olds were the only minors automatically tried as adults, all others stayed in juvenile courts that afforded them the benefits discussed earlier. However, in response to rising violence get tough reforms were imposed. Kids, as young as fifteen, were now being tried automatically as adults for serious crimes. Additionally, if convicted of first-degree murder the judge can then choose to sentence the youth to a juvenile facility until twenty-one years of age, or mandatory life in adult prison. Then in 1997, legislation got even tougher. Fourteen year olds were now automatically charged as adults for serious offenses. Additionally, adult courts can no longer chose juvenile sentencing. One senator who helped craft the tougher legislation stated, “it doesn’t matter so much whether it’s 12 or 14 or 50 or 60, the Juvenile justice reform act’s basic finding was that if you do the crime, you do the time” (Barnes 2011). The number of juveniles serving life in adult correctional facilities