INTERNATIONAL CHILD AND YOUTH CARE NETWORK

9 MARCH 2000
_________________________________

Proposition 21 Approved by California Voters

The complex and detailed proposition, drafted by prosecutors and backed by police groups, had the support of 3,168,069 voters, or 62 percent, and was opposed by 1,968,009, or 38 percent, early today.

"It's a sad day for California when voters have chosen to allocate billions of dollars to send juveniles to prisons and not one dollar to prevention," said Kim Mayoshi, who led the opposition. "This initiative is going to push thousands of nonviolent offenders into the criminal justice system at the age of 14."

The measure calls for prosecutors, rather than juvenile court judges, to decide whether youths aged 14 to 17 are tried as adults for serious crimes. Juveniles tried in adult court face adult sentences of up to life in prison. Sentences in juvenile court last only until age 25. Proposition 21 also limits judges' authority to refer youths to treatment or probation rather than locked facilities after convictions. The measure requires adult prison sentences, in most cases, for 16-year-olds convicted of felonies in adult court.

Supporters said the rehabilitation-oriented juvenile court system would work better if allowed to concentrate on less-serious cases that would remain in the system. Opponents said the war on youth crime is already being won without changing the system. They cited state reports showing California's juvenile crime rate dropped 30 percent for felonies, and more than 50 percent for homicides, between 1990 and 1998. They also said Proposition 21 would cost $750 million for new prisons and hundreds of millions more at the local level.

California voters have approved an unbroken series of prosecution-backed crime initiatives. A measure expanding the death penalty law passed in 1978, followed by a 1982 measure broadening prosecution evidence and narrowing the insanity defense; a 1990 measure giving prosecutors access to pretrial evidence and curtailing defendants' rights at preliminary hearings; and the 1994 three-strikes law for repeat felons.

ABC News referred to "a crackdown on juvenile crime — which could mandate the death penalty for some 14-year-old offenders."  The measure, which comes despite the lowest U.S. youth crime rate since 1987 and a 60 percent decline in juvenile murder arrests in California, requires adult trials for juveniles 14 or older charged with murder or specified sex crimes — a move which could put them on Death Row if convicted. It also boosts penalties for gang-related crimes, requires imprisonment for certain offences, and expands the list of offences for which longer prison sentences would be imposed.

____________

The Christian Science Monitor editorialises today:

Harsh Justice in California

Californians, always ready to engage in direct democracy on even the most complex issues, did some mega-legislating when they passed Proposition 21 on Tuesday by a 62 to 38 percent margin.

That initiative imposes sweeping changes in the state's treatment of youthful offenders. Prosecutors, not judges, will now have authority to decide whether 14- to 17-year-olds are tried in adult court. Adult sentences will be required for most 16-year-olds convicted of a felony. In addition, the measure mandates tougher sentences for crimes related to gang activities. The definition of a "serious felony" is expanded, thus enlarging the numbers of people likely to be nabbed by California's "three strikes" law.

The driving force behind Prop 21 was former Gov. Pete Wilson, the state's association of district attorneys, and victims' rights groups. They argue that juvenile crime remains high, despite recent decreases, and is increasingly violent.

But what are the costs of giving up on rehabilitation of thousands of youthful offenders? Is the heavy emphasis on punishment eclipsing efforts to prevent kids from becoming criminals? Will the hundreds of millions of dollars needed for additional prison space be well-invested?

Opponents of the ballot measure tried to raise these questions. They were swimming against a strong political current, not just in California but nationally.

No one would argue that violent young criminals shouldn't be dealt with forcefully. But jettisoning the individual evaluation that judges and juvenile-justice officials can bring to the system is ill-advised. It might mean larger problems later on.

____________

In a related column in today's Monitor, Daniel B. Wood writes

With initiatives, California tilts conservative

With the passage of a controversial ballot initiative Tuesday, California has eliminated many of the legal protections for young criminals, signaling a significant and decisive reaffirmation of a conservative, law-and-order approach to crime.

The Golden State has been leaning this direction since 1995, when then-Gov. Pete Wilson pushed through his three-strikes-and-you're-out law. But to many observers, the youth-crime initiative represents a new threshold, as the state now increasingly applies these get-tough policies even to the youngest offenders.

Taken with another successful Tuesday initiative - which bans the state from recognizing gay marriages - Proposition 21 indicates that California's social conservatism remains a powerful force amid radical demographic changes here.

The initiative holds that teenagers, if convicted, will face many of the same penalties as adults. Moreover, prosecutors will no longer have to go before a judge in deciding whether to charge juveniles 14 and older as adults, and convicted gang members will be required to register with local law-enforcement agencies.

"Californians have acted decisively to retake California neighborhoods, schools, and businesses from vicious street gangs who for too long have hidden behind a lenient and outdated juvenile-justice system," says Mr. Wilson, who also sponsored this year's initiative. "Prop. 21 will help win the war on youth crime, concentrating the juvenile system's resources at rehabilitating nonviolent offenders, but at the same time sending the clear message that there will be serious consequences for violent criminal acts."

Wilson says allowing district attorneys to decide when juveniles should be tried as adults will streamline the system, focusing law enforcement's limited resources on youths who can be redeemed. At the same time, proponents say, the changes will better protect the public from gangs.

Opponents, however, say the measure will further clog courts and prisons the way the state's three-strikes laws have - adding more than $1.3 billion in annual prison-construction costs and $600 million in expenses. They point to a bipartisan commission convened in 1995, which concluded that cracking down harder on juveniles would be ineffective. It cited studies showing that state funds would be better spent on crime deterrents.

Beyond law-enforcement policy, the debate over Prop. 21 has also given fresh fuel to an ongoing debate about the initiative process: Do ballot initiatives oversimplify complex issues, with interest groups glossing over key points in order to make compelling advertising?

Steven Schier, a political scientist at Carleton College in Northfield, Minn., says California voters were "swamped with initiative choices." He has written a book on the shortfalls of the initiative process and suggests that the glut of ballots may keep voters from taking a deep look.

"California voters bought the argument once again that getting tough with punishment of criminals, and getting them off the streets, is the best way to solve crime," says Professor Schier. "Whether that approach is effective is another matter."

____________

WHAT IS YOUR VIEW? It seems that the passage of Proposition 21
after a century of the juvenile justice system, represents a serious conflict
of attitudes as to how we should be dealing with youth crime. As a child
and youth worker, a corrections worker, a policy maker .. what is your view?

Write to cyc-net@icon.co.za