Executive Summary
There has been a significant evolution of the juvenile system in California over time. Many of the steps taken are to be applauded. However, the system in California needs to provide for the minimum age law under which juvenile jurisdiction can be asserted (Reich, 2020). This gap has posed significant challenges related to the way children are treated in the criminal justice system based on race and societal development background (Lesnick, 2023). It has been seen that the continued state of uncertainty has led to persistent disparities majorly affecting the lives of youths of African or Latino origin. Therefore, there is a need to carry out the relevant reforms to ensure that the system’s principles of fairness and equity are upheld. This memo offers evidence-based recommendations to address this challenge, including establishing the minimum age of criminal responsibility in California, promoting diversion programs, and setting up awareness campaigns to inform the general public about the policy position. Guided implementation of the recommendations will significantly advance the fairness and accountability of the juvenile justice system in California.
Background
In California, significant measures have been taken to improve the standard and efficiency of the juvenile justice system. These changes have been significantly influenced by societal developments and changes in approaches necessary to address youth delinquency. With that, understanding the system’s historical background is necessary to appreciate the nature of the development experienced. It is important to note that California was among the pioneer states in the U.S. in the 1990s regarding establishing juvenile courts (Heldman, 2022). These courts were founded on rehabilitation and reintegration, replacing the pre-existing punitive measures of treating persons in conflict with the law. The system went through a progressive era, which saw the emergence of the doctrine of “parens patriae: This doctrine places the responsibility to guide youths in the hands of the state (Higdon, 2020). It requires the state to intervene and support child offenders rather than punishing them. This era was greatly influenced by the need to address the root causes of delinquency and the provision of opportunities for rehabilitation for youths.
California took strides backward in the 1940s and 1950s, and more punitive measures were implemented to address delinquency (Packel, 2002). The reason for establishing these measures was an increased rate of youth engagement in crime, which needed to be countered effectively. During that time, the system adopted the “get tough” perspective, an approach that saw the institutionalization of harsher measures that did not consider rehabilitation (Abrams, 2021). As a result of this shift, several court cases established that consideration of the principles of justice and fairness in California’s juvenile justice ice system (Zane et al., 2021). One such case is In re Gault (1967), which required the state to adhere to due process in dealing with juveniles. Additionally, the 1970 decision In re Winship heralded the due process revolution by setting a higher standard of proof in delinquency adjudications.
With modernization came a stronger consideration of rehabilitation instead of punishment. There was a renewed focus on rehabilitation in the 1980s and 1990s. This revolution was characterized by the adoption of diversion programs in the juvenile justice system, the setting up of community-based alternatives in dealing with youth delinquency, and institutionalizing restorative justice practices. At that time, there also came the “superpredator” narrative, which fueled the enactment of tougher laws guiding the sentencing of juveniles. This marked another resurgence of punitive measures.
The Juvenile System in California
That influenced the onset of the juvenile system in Chicago. The model prioritized rehabilitation and diversion when dealing with young offenders. Establishing and adopting this model in California was a significant step in developing a separate criminal system jurisprudence that deals with young offenders. This was characterized by the enactment of key Acts of parliament (Boches, 1967). For instance, the Juvenile Court Law of 1903 established the operational grounds under which California could handle juveniles by setting up specialized juvenile courts. These courts were given the jurisdiction to hear and determine matters related to youth delinquency. In 1961, the Welfare and Institutions Code was enacted. This code provided for advanced levels of protection of the rights of juveniles. The legal standards and evolving societal norms significantly influenced the code. This shows how influential societal and political factors are in shaping policies. This can be seen from how public opinion, political pressure, and media discourse have contributed to significant shifts in the juvenile justice system.
With the numerous injustices in the system, efforts were made to initiate reforms and improve young offenders’ general well-being and outcomes, aiming to promote the community’s safety (Ashby, 1982). There has been a series of emerging stances, such as diversion programs, restorative justice, and community-based alternatives. These developments are purposed to reduce recidivism and address the core factors influencing youth criminal behavior. Some of these efforts have been impactful, as seen in this text. The resulting position is reduced recidivism and the integration of youths into society after rehabilitation. However, there have been several failures of the system, creating a gap that leads to injustice and unfairness in the juvenile justice system in California. These challenges include stakeholder standoffs and the complexity of the juvenile justice policy-making process. These gaps include the fact that no success to be more provides for the minimum age under which an individual can be found responsible for an act in conflict with the law. This gap subsequently leads to a need for clear legal guidelines guaranteeing the protection of young persons. It has triggered racial, age, and economic disparities within the juvenile justice system in California. This, therefore, undermines the principles of equity, justice, fairness, and due process. In that regard, there is a need to safeguard young persons’ rights by solving the legislative gaps.
Current Practices
There has been a shift in statistics in California regarding the interaction rates with the juvenile justice system. There has been a decreasing rate of incarceration (California et al., 2016), and approximately 50,000 juveniles were arrested. This marked a 34.3% increase compared to 2021 (California Department of Justice, 2023). However, the period in 2023 saw a decline. Considering the population adjustment factor, there have been 621 arrests per 100,000 youth in California. This decline was significant in the juvenile justice system in California, as it marked a 54% decrease in arrests related to felonies and 50 % in violent crimes. The number of incarcerations, however, requires the setting up measures to address youth involvement in the criminal justice system. Such efforts encompass effective policies, setting up prevention programs, and promoting support for at-risk youths. This is because, despite the dropping of the number of youths confined in the U.S., incarceration is still ineffective and does little to make sure that young people do not engage in criminal activities. It does not improve public safety, and instead, it harms young persons’ mental health as a result of exposure to abuse. It also increases the challenge of racial and ethnic disparities in the juvenile justice system. Understanding these challenges, measures have been taken to reduce incarceration. These recognize the extent to which incarceration can affect the general development of a young person. This has led to the development of diversion programs and other community-based alternatives to deal with youth delinquency. All that is in the move to ensure that the punitive measures are eliminated and positive outcomes for young persons are prioritized.
Discretionary Processing of Children under 12
As established in this paper, there is no minimum age for juvenile jurisdiction in California. This, therefore, subjects children under 12 to the court’s discretion in determining whether they are mentally aware of the consequences of their actions. This then gives law enforcement agencies and the courts more power to determine the extent to which a child can enjoy the constitutional rights that are entitled to them. These parties tasked with assessing the capacity of a child offender consider several factors in their decisions. These include the severity of the offense committed, the individual history of the person in conflict with the law, and the availability of support networks and programs within their community. This discretionary power is, therefore, conflicting, as the general outcome of an individual is determined by others based on an examination of factors from their perspective. This has detrimental consequences on the child involved.
Additionally, exposing an individual to the criminal justice system at a young age may trigger the effects of the existing vulnerabilities around them, leading to higher chances of long-term negative outcomes. Such outcomes include psychological trauma, social stigmatization, and disrupted education. It is, therefore, imperative to ensure that alternative approaches are taken to minimize the harm to young children. Setting a minimum age for juvenile justice jurisdiction is the key factor.
Establishing a Minimum Age Law
The gap created by the lack of laws specifying the minimum age in California has caused significant challenges. However, set models can be adopted in the state to ensure the challenges are corrected. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) provides international human rights standards for children. It significantly underscores the need for nations, within their jurisdictions, to put in place the minimum age under which a person can be said to be criminally responsible. Under Article 40, the UNCRC provides that the minimum age should be applicable in that a person below that age cannot be held responsible for a criminal act because of the nature of their needs and vulnerabilities due to their age factor. By internalizing these laws and standards, the juvenile system in California would have satisfied the standards set by international law, with the intent of upholding the fundamental rights of a child as well as ensuring that how children are treated within the justice system takes into consideration the principles of justice and equality. This establishment, therefore, will be more of setting a minimum age, as it will extend to the demonstration of the commitment of the state of California to promote and safeguard the rights of children. This will also prevent any uncertainties by establishing consistent and coherent practice standards shaped by the universal standards of justice and fairness.
Factor Comparison
Several jurisdictions have put the minimum age for juvenile jurisdiction in place. Additionally, different states within the United States have set the same (Porter, 2020). For instance, 21 states within the U.S. have set the minimum age, with one state setting six years, five states for seven years, three states for eight years, 11 states for ten years, and one state for 11 years (Human et al., 2022). California is, however, not part of this progress in ensuring that criminal justice is fair and focuses on the well-being and development of individuals and society rather than putting effort into punishing individuals. The lack of such laws, as seen, leads to disparities and instances of injustice in California’s juvenile justice system. It is also seen that states that have set a higher minimum age have aligned their juvenile justice system to rehabilitation programs and taken up diversion measures instead of fixing their position to punitive legal interventions. This reflects that for the justice system to be effective enough, there must be critical consideration of the rights and needs of a child in conflict with the law. This outcome has also been realized internationally, where nations that have set a minimum age are seen to achieve more favorable and progressive outcomes. These positives of setting a minimum age threshold include a lower recidivism rate and the overall improvement of the well-being of youths and persons in conflict with the law. This shows that minimum age best practices are effective and can be a progressive move for California’s juvenile justice system policies and interventions.
Basis for Minimum Age Legislation
Several factors establish the need to set the minimum age to ensure the well-being of children and that their rights are upheld. These can have the backing of both scientific studies and legal establishments. Under scientific research, the studies around neuroscience show the stages of brain development based on an individual’s age. It shows that when a person is young, their cognitive and emotional processes are not well developed, and they constantly evolve from childhood until adulthood (Hochberg, 2020). Evolution is associated with several factors created by the environment in which an individual stays or the system through which a child goes. These include impulse control due to environmental triggers, risk assessment by an individual, and their decision-making. This shows that the factors affecting a person will define them upon maturity, begging the need to safeguard children. Once children go through the criminal justice system, with the incomplete state of their brains, their ability to comprehend the happenings around them could be impaired (Baidawi & Piquero, 2021). It is more difficult to understand the complexities of the juvenile justice system’s legal processes and appreciate the consequences of their actions (Shaw & Greenhow, 2020).
Additionally, the extent to which a child understands the legal norms and their responsibility for criminal conduct and actions depends on cognitive and psychological factors. These factors can include peer influence and limited future orientation. By holding children with the same regard as adults, the juvenile justice system disregards the unique vulnerabilities in terms of development and affects their general growth and inherent character (Case & Bateman, 2020).
The legal framework has significantly incorporated this aspect of scientific findings about child offenders. The structure in which decisions are made and policies are formulated accounts for this factor function, developmental stage, and psychiatric diagnosis. The courts assess these factors in determining a child’s capacity to engage in criminal activities and stage a defense before the court after understanding the implications of the legal proceedings against them. The court has considered this position in several cases. In re Gault (1970), the court found out that because of the nature of understanding and level of children’s growth, there is a need to follow due process while dealing with juveniles. This includes the right to counsel. The right to counsel is essential because it is impossible for a juvenile to understand the entire legal process and effectively interact with the criminal justice system. Assigning a lawyer to child offenders is key to safeguarding their rights. The court also affirmed that there should be a strict adherence to the right to notice of charge and the right to confront a witness. All these are purposed to ensure that the child’s interest comes first as they are taken through the criminal justice system.
In re Winship (1970), the court raised the standard of proof in juvenile cases to limit instances of unwarranted convictions. This has elevated the position of juvenile justice, as the developmental factors have been considered to ensure the principles of justice, proportionality, and equity have been followed in the juvenile justice system. The recognition and appreciation of the unique status of children in the criminal justice system is essential in ensuring that they are given room to grow as their dignity and rights are respected while being allowed to rehabilitate and grow progressively. However, certain realities and limitations affect the effectiveness of this position. These are the youth offender’s cognitive limitations and developmental realities. These make it hard to balance the principles of accountability and rehabilitation, making it hard for the court to adjudicate. Summarily, understanding that the legal position is shaped and influenced by scientific understanding of a child’s brain development is key in navigating through the laws and policies of the juvenile justice system. It gives more reasons for a minimum age of criminal responsibility set to ensure that juveniles’ constitutional rights are upheld.
Analysis
The State of California has made great strides in reducing youth incarceration. This has been made possible, as shown in the section above, through implementing diversion programs in the state and encouraging community-based alternatives to the criminal justice system. This has made progress, moving away from the odds of the punitive measures that have long been applied in California to more rehabilitative measures that focus on the development of the individual and the society rather than punishing them. This has yielded more positive outcomes, characterized by a lower recidivism rate and an advanced standard of social reintegration of persons in conflict with the law. However, as much as there is great progress made, the juvenile justice system in California still deals with the persistent issue of structural disparities. This affects the rights of children from black and Latino communities. There is, therefore, a need to address these challenges to reduce the rate of incarceration in California.
Additionally, the consideration of this challenge would ensure that there is equity in the system. The efforts to do this should be focused on the systemic issues and barriers to equitable treatment. These barriers include disparities in access to resources and support services.
The process is not all futile on the issue of discretionary processing of children under the age of 12. It is important that the court individualizes cases and determines them based on the circumstances around them instead of subjecting children to the adult standard. This approach takes into account the nature of the child and their background. However, several ethical and developmental considerations come into play in this regard. This begs the necessity of establishing clear guidelines that will protect and promote the rights of persons in conflict with the law and ensure society’s general well-being and well-being. The fact that the court has discretion means that it has the power to shape and influence the outcome. This opens room for arbitrary decisions and inconsistency in how juveniles are treated in California. For this to be effectively addressed, clear and consistent guidelines and standards of the process should be set. Additionally, a minimum age for criminal responsibility for juveniles should be set to ensure that the gaps in the law are eliminated effectively.
It has also been seen that factors around a child’s development and well-being must be considered while setting the minimum age and as the justice system interacts with children. This is drawn to the diversion programs that prioritize rehabilitation. The programs also consider a person’s well-being and any underlying behavior issues. With this, detention facilities are found to be detrimental to the growth of a child. It impairs their mental health growth, limits their education, and cuts their prospects. There is, therefore, a need to utilize trauma-based approaches. These will support the positive development of youths, as it understands the association between the juvenile justice system and the associated risks.
The rationale for the recommendations
- Raising the minimum age for juvenile jurisdiction will align California laws with the international standards that advocate for a minimum age for juvenile responsibility. This consideration will align the laws in California with the principles of justice, equity, and fairness. Additionally, scientific research shows that children constantly evolve regarding their mental growth and cognitive behavior. The raising of the minimum age in California will take into account these factors, and it will contribute to the realization of the goals of the juvenile justice system. Additionally, the court’s decisions regarding children should be considered as they have both a binding force and persuasive nature to the laws and policies around the Juvenile justice system in California.
- Incorporation of community-based mechanisms- drawing reference from the comparison in this paper, the international standard concerning handling persons in conflict with the law has shifted to promote rehabilitation and reduce recidivism. These measures effectively promote a child’s growth, as their brain is not fully developed until they are adults. It also supports the well-being of youth offenders as they are taken through the justice system. This will lead to a more positive outcome, which has the child’s best interest at heart as well as the development and progress of the community in mind.
- Education of Stakeholders- In as much as there are positive steps, the stakeholders are the ones to actualize them. This will ensure that the policies and practices are not passive but lived realities. Once the stakeholders are aware of the psychological impact of the juvenile justice system on a child, more effective interventions will be put in place to ensure that youth offenders are supported. The collaboration of informed stakeholders will ensure that there is effective implementation of the reforms proposed, as well as ensuring the measures taken are sustainable. This will maximize the juvenile justice system’s impact in preventing recidivism.
Conclusion
Setting a minimum age for juvenile jurisdiction in California is essential and needs to be prioritized. The absence of this standard has led to widespread inequalities, disparities, and injustice, affecting young persons, especially those from marginalized communities. Significant steps have been taken to ensure that the juvenile justice system effectively prevents recidivism. However, despite these strides, the lack of minimum age and the subject of discretion for persons in conflict with the law below the age of 12 has exposed young persons to potential harm. This, in turn, can negatively affect their development and growth in general. Therefore, there is a need to align the laws in California to international standards and establish the minimum age for juvenile jurisdiction. This will ensure that the interests of children are taken into consideration and that there is fairness and equity in the dispensation of justice. Further, utilizing community-based methods and educating stakeholders will significantly contribute to the reduction of recidivism. Through these efforts, the juvenile justice system in California would be improved.
Bibliography
Abrams, L. S., Mizel, M. L., & Barnett, E. S. (2021). The criminalization of young children and overrepresentation of black youth in the juvenile justice system. Race and social problems, pp. 13, 73–84.
Ashby, T. H. (1982). Effects of Recent Legislation on the California Juvenile Justice System. USFL Rev., pp. 17, 705.
Baidawi, S., & Piquero, A. R. (2021). Neurodisability among children at the nexus of the child welfare and youth justice system. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 50(4), 803-819.
Boches, R. E. (1967). Juvenile Justice in California: A Re-evaluation. Hastings LJ, 19, 47.
California Department of Justice. (2023). Juvenile Justice in California 2022. https://data-openjustice.doj.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-06/Juvenile%20Justice%20In%20CA%202022f.pdf
California Juvenile Justice (CJCJ). (2016, August 16). Fact sheet: California’s youth and young adult arrest rates continue a historic decline https://www.cjcj.org/reports-publications/publications/fact-sheet-californias-youth-and-young-adult-arrest-rates-continue-a-historic-decline
Case, S., & Bateman, T. (2020). The punitive transition in youth justice: Reconstructing the child as offender. Children & Society, 34(6), 475-491.
Heldman, J. K. (2022). Transforming the culture of youth justice in the wake of youth prison closures. Lewis & Clark L. Rev., 26, 1.
Higdon, M. J. (2020). Parens Patriae and the Disinherited Child. Wash. L. Rev., 95, 619.
Hochberg, Z. E., & Konner, M. (2020). Emerging adulthood is a pre-adult life-history stage—frontiers in endocrinology, 10, 918.
Human Rights Watch. (2022, September 13). How Do U.S. States Measure Up on Child Rights? Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/feature/2022/09/13/how-do-states-measure-up-child-rights
Lesnick, J., Abrams, L. S., & Barnert, E. S. (2023). Youth Justice at a Crossroads: Twenty-First Century Progressive Reforms and Lessons to Inform the Path Forward. Social Service Review, 97(4), 755-804.
Packel, A. K. (2002). Juvenile Justice and the Punishment of Recidivists under California’s Three Strikes Law. Calif. L. Rev., 90, 1157.
Porter, N. D. (2020). Top trends in criminal justice reform. The Sentencing Project.
Reich, C. A. (2020). Individual rights and social welfare: the emerging legal issues. In Welfare Law (pp. 255–267). Routledge.
Shaw, J., & Greenhow, S. (2020). Children in care: exploitation, offending and the denial of victimhood in a prosecution-led culture of practice. The British Journal of Social Work, 50(5), 1551–1569.
Zane, S. N., Welsh, B. C., Mears, D. P., & Zimmerman, G. M. (2021). Pathways through juvenile justice: A system-level assessment of cumulative disadvantage in processing juvenile offenders. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, pp. 1–32.
write