In Justice We Trust: Proposition 21

Juveniles are being treated as adults when it comes to crimes, and are receiving higher sentences than adults. Furthermore, juveniles do not fully understand the consequences of their actions. Juvenile’s brains are not fully developed and experience loss in gray matter. According to the article Startling Find on Teenage Brains by Paul Thompson, he states, “gray matter, which brain researchers believe supports all of our thinking and emotions, is purged at a rate of 1 percent to 2 percent a year during this period” (Thompson). Gray matter makes up of people’s critical thinking and awareness. Juveniles are losing gray matter and are therefore forgetting the consequences of their actions. In addition, juveniles are coddled way too much by their parents and grow up without any discipline. Why is it that juveniles are segregated from adults in society in every aspect except when it comes to crimes? Juveniles do not deserve to be tried as adults when they commit heinous crimes because it is not constitutionally correct and

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as adults because the environment in adult prisons are for adults, not juveniles, therefore, Proposition 21 should be repealed.

Juveniles should not receive severe adult sentences for the murders they commit due to their underdeveloped prefrontal cortex not allowing them to fully process decisions and consequences at a young age. In fact, the prefrontal cortex is the part of the brain where decision making originates and does not fully develop until the age of 25. Furthermore, sentencing a juvenile as an adult while they are at an impulsive age and subject to peer pressure is resulting to cruel and unusual punishment as defined in the eighth amendment of the United States Bill of Rights. Eventually, imposing an adult verdict over a juvenile would inhibit a proper rehabilitation for the convicted juvenile. Hence, it is recommended that states that currently have life without parole or the death penalty laws, ratify a new law for juvenile convicts for proper sentencing and rehabilitation.

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.

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

Today’s heated debate regarding the decision to try juveniles as adults has prompted individuals to construct opinionated and informational articles on the topic. The nation’s troubled youth are protected by groups that believe these offenders deserve rehabilitation and a chance to develop into a productive member of society. However, others believe that those committing certain heinous crimes should be tried as adults as a means to protect public safety, prevent second offenders, and “dispense justice in the form of punishment” (Aliprandini & Michael, 2016). Because these perspectives offer a reasonable and valid argument, juveniles responsible for major crimes

In the early part of 2000 the state of California passed a law, Proposition 21, which made it easier for prosecutors to try young people as adults if they committed certain felonies. Alonza Thomas Jr. was the first teenager to be prosecuted under the new law that had only came into effect two week prior to his arrested.

“The philosophy of rehabilitating juveniles shifted to a philosophy of punishing juveniles. A big part of this nationwide “get tough” on teen offenders policy has been legislation making it easier to try juveniles offenders as adults” (Taylor, 2001-2002). So what does Proposition 21 actually do? Depending on the nature and seriousness of the crime it can require an adult trial for juveniles14 or older include who have been charged with a murder or specified sex offenses. It can also force elimination of informal probation for juveniles who have committed felonies and require registration for gang related offenses. It also designates additional crimes as violent and serious felonies which subject offenders to longer sentencing if found guilty. There are also two revisions in proposition 21 that dramatically alter the identification and punishment for fringe offenders. ”First, a defendant

Adults, on the other hand, are fully developed and fully conscience of their actions and the consequences that follow. However, because teen brains are not fully developed, this allows their brains to grow and learn from mistakes and experiences. In the article, “Juveniles Don’t Deserve Life Sentences”, author Gail Garinger talks about her first hand experience with juveniles in the justice system. She has seen the potential for them to grow and change over the years, and how being tried as adults and serving life sentences has had severe impacts on many. Gail believe adult prison is not the place for a teen. Placing juveniles in adult prison substantially inhibits their potential for

Did you know, that in the United States alone, Over 200,000 children are charged and imprisoned every year as adults? Early in the 20th century, most states established juvenile courts to rehabilitate and not just punish youthful offenders. The system was designed for children to have a second chance at their lives. “A separate juvenile-justice system, which sought to rehabilitate and not just punish children, was part of a movement by progressives to create a legally defined adolescence through the passage of child-labor and compulsory education laws and the creation of parks and open spaces.”(How to reduce crime Pg 1) Although the view on juveniles committing brutal crimes is nearly inconceivable, it is not a solution to give juveniles adult consequences because the effects of the adult system on juveniles are not effective.

People feel that the American justice system constructs upon holding perpetrators accountable for their actions. Most states in America believe by setting harsh sentences that this will act as a deterrent to other juveniles who are considering committing crimes. There may be some veracity to trying juveniles as adults. The juvenile arrest rate reported by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention shows that, “The juvenile Violent Crime Index arrest rate increased in the mid-2000s, and then declined through 2012 to its lowest level since at least 1980. The rate in 2012 was 38% below its 1980 level and 63% below the peak year of 1994. In 2012, there were 182 arrests for Violent Crime Index offenses for every 100,000 youth between 10 and 17 years of age. If each of these arrests involved a different juvenile, which is unlikely, then no more than 1 in every 544 person’s ages 10-17 was arrested for a Violent Crime Index offense in 2012, or less than one-fifth of 1% of all juveniles ages 10 to 17 living in the states.” This rating shows that by trying juveniles as adults has coincided considerably with the lowering rate of juvenile

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.

“I used to believe are our future but now I realize that this, sadly isn’t the reality. Through laws that treat kids like adults, the government is throwing away the future of children in this country.” (D. Lee) An estimated 200,000 juveniles are tried as adults. The term juvenile refers to any young person under the age of 18. For most states in the United States, the age of majority is 18. While there are many things that juveniles are unable to do until they reach the age of 18, being charged as an adult for a crime is not amongst those things in some states. Juveniles are not allowed to vote, drink alcohol, or sign a legal contract, yet they can be charged and treated like adults when it comes to them being

This has successfully freeing or providing possibility of parole for juvenile delinquents. But, when considering if the offender should be released or not, the motive behind the murder should be taken into account as well. If the child had a motive behind the murder of the victim, for example in Phillips’ case, it was claimed that Madison was found with her underwear and pants down (Guarino 4). This is a valid sign to the police that Phillips’ motive behind the murder of Madison was that Madison would tell someone that he tried to rape her. It is also presumed that the only reason Madison was killed was because she wouldn’t stop crying. Though the new law will help in regaining the lives of individuals that could be perceived as victims themselves, there are also killers that do not deserve the right to walk freely. For example, in the example of Alyssa Bustamante, she took the life of young Elizabeth Olten while she was walking home from school. When asked what her motive was behind killing Olten, she told police she wanted to know what it felt like to kill someone. Bustamante was arrested and charged with first degree murder in the case of Elizabeth Olten. When she appeared in court, the judge insisted she be tried as an adult. When tried, Bustamante changed her plea to guilty in

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