Are Kids Under 12 Too Young for Court?
California legislature is putting forth a bill in 2020 that would bar the juvenile justice system from hearing most cases of children younger than 12 similar to legislation that was just passed in Massachusetts this year. It has caused backlash from district attorneys.
California currently has no minimum age that would prevent courts from hearing cases of children charged with criminal offenses.
It would require counties in the state to develop the "least restrictive" alternatives to the juvenile justice system. This could mean a heavier reliance on the dependency court system, where child protective agencies with providing service to vulnerable children. The bill asserts that children younger than 12 are too young to enter the justice system.
All states have an established age of jurisdiction, which is the maximum age of juvenile court jurisdiction(usually 18 years old). It is the age where a young person stops being eligible for the rehabilitative services in the juvenile justice system.
All states have an established age of jurisdiction, which is the maximum age of juvenile court jurisdiction(usually 18 years old). It is the age where a young person stops being eligible for the rehabilitative services in the juvenile justice system.
Developmental brain science points to longer time for teenage brains to mature into adulthood, and some states are even looking to extend access to the juvenile system for youth 18 and older. On the other side, there is an effort to limit access to the system for only the youngest children.
20 states currently have a minimum age for entry into the juvenile justice system ranging from 6 to 12. There are only a small number of cases involving children 11 and under in California that go to juvenile delinquency court and most get dismissed or resolved informally.
Some research indicates that when young persons enter the justice system, they are more likely to become chronic offenders later in life and have trouble advancing their education.
The Los Angeles County district attorney's office has been a critic of the bill since it was introduced last year. A letter to the committee mentioned several cases that show that the juvenile justice system is the only way to rehabilitate children and protect public safety.
Advocates for the bill say that the juvenile justice system doesn't have a strong track record of providing effective support services to young people and that they don't address the trauma many of them are facing.
The most recent version of the bill recognizes that children under 12 who commit murder, rape, or other violent offenses would still be sent through the juvenile delinquency courts.
Santa Clara County has already put these rules into effect. In 2010 they put into place a protocol that sends kids to a mental health court instead of juvenile court.
Comments from Allen:
Let me start by addressing the last item first: do NOT send any child to mental health counseling or treatment unless that child suffers from a mental illness.
As one who has represented many juvenile offenders over the years, I can see several categories of those offenders: violent offenders, sex offenders, fetal-alcohol-syndrome offenders, drug offenders, one-time offenders and non-stop offenders. In the latter category, I would include a nine-year-old child I once represented who had a rap sheet several pages long. As he was leaving the court with me, he was stopped by juvenile probation officers who searched him. In his pocket was a check he had stolen from a neighbor's mailbox.
The California proposal is meant to address the "problem" of traditional juvenile courts. Before fixing a problem in a system, you need to understand the system.
Idaho's current juvenile justice system is geared primarily toward rehabilitation. First-time offenders often get the ability to work with probation officers for a few months, do community service, and then have the charges dropped. The system also provides that upon reaching age 18, the juvenile may petition the court to have all of his juvenile record expunged (other than certain extremely violent offenses).
It is the rare case in which the child is singled out for punishment as the primary goal of the juvenile system.
I have generally been impressed with the approach of the juvenile courts in giving juveniles chances to get their lives straightened out before they become adults. Incarceration with other juveniles may or may not be part of the program, but I like the current focus on rehabilitation and just having the juvenile "get his mind right" so he can stay out of trouble in the future. Children under 12 are not too young to enter the current system in Idaho. Juvenile judges are not stupid; they know how to treat young offenders and, in general, I have found these judges compassionate toward juveniles.
No system is perfect. Don't judge a system by the occasional person who falls through the cracks, or by a probation officer here or there who does a poor job. Also, don't expect any system to be able to "fix" people. All a system can do it provide tools for someone to do better.
Further, the California proposal does not address one flaw in the system for which I do not have an answer: protecting the presumption of innocence for a defendant in the juvenile system, because a judge decides the facts in contested cases, not a jury. In my experience outside of Bonneville County, Idaho, some judges seem to jump right into deciding how they can help the young criminal before giving that young person a chance to be presumed innocent. So long as juvenile crimes are decided solely by judges, this will always be a concern.
There is another major problem in Idaho's juvenile system, however. Some juveniles are charged under Idaho's "Juvenile Correction Act," and some are not. Under current Idaho law, when a juvenile reaches 18 years of age, he can apply to have his record expunged. The petition to expunge the juvenile record is routinely granted. However, if the original defense was not brought under the Juvenile Corrections Act, it cannot be expunged and it remains on his record. I am convinced this is a major legislative oversight. Two juveniles can be convicted of similar crimes, one gets a clean record and the other does not. I don't believe the legislature intended that result, and that needs to change.
I have represented many who have wanted to clean up their past juvenile records and have not been able to do so for this reason. In some cases, I have been able to seal their records so their juvenile past will not affect their future employment, but sealing a record is a matter of a judge's discretion, and some judges just don't feel like granting these motions, even 15 years after the event.
All we need to correct this injustice is an amendment to current law to state that all offenses committed by juveniles may be expunged at age 18 except the type of offenses which are specifically prohibited from expungement under the Juvenile Corrections Act. Problem solved.
Let me start by addressing the last item first: do NOT send any child to mental health counseling or treatment unless that child suffers from a mental illness.
As one who has represented many juvenile offenders over the years, I can see several categories of those offenders: violent offenders, sex offenders, fetal-alcohol-syndrome offenders, drug offenders, one-time offenders and non-stop offenders. In the latter category, I would include a nine-year-old child I once represented who had a rap sheet several pages long. As he was leaving the court with me, he was stopped by juvenile probation officers who searched him. In his pocket was a check he had stolen from a neighbor's mailbox.
The California proposal is meant to address the "problem" of traditional juvenile courts. Before fixing a problem in a system, you need to understand the system.
Idaho's current juvenile justice system is geared primarily toward rehabilitation. First-time offenders often get the ability to work with probation officers for a few months, do community service, and then have the charges dropped. The system also provides that upon reaching age 18, the juvenile may petition the court to have all of his juvenile record expunged (other than certain extremely violent offenses).
It is the rare case in which the child is singled out for punishment as the primary goal of the juvenile system.
I have generally been impressed with the approach of the juvenile courts in giving juveniles chances to get their lives straightened out before they become adults. Incarceration with other juveniles may or may not be part of the program, but I like the current focus on rehabilitation and just having the juvenile "get his mind right" so he can stay out of trouble in the future. Children under 12 are not too young to enter the current system in Idaho. Juvenile judges are not stupid; they know how to treat young offenders and, in general, I have found these judges compassionate toward juveniles.
No system is perfect. Don't judge a system by the occasional person who falls through the cracks, or by a probation officer here or there who does a poor job. Also, don't expect any system to be able to "fix" people. All a system can do it provide tools for someone to do better.
Further, the California proposal does not address one flaw in the system for which I do not have an answer: protecting the presumption of innocence for a defendant in the juvenile system, because a judge decides the facts in contested cases, not a jury. In my experience outside of Bonneville County, Idaho, some judges seem to jump right into deciding how they can help the young criminal before giving that young person a chance to be presumed innocent. So long as juvenile crimes are decided solely by judges, this will always be a concern.
There is another major problem in Idaho's juvenile system, however. Some juveniles are charged under Idaho's "Juvenile Correction Act," and some are not. Under current Idaho law, when a juvenile reaches 18 years of age, he can apply to have his record expunged. The petition to expunge the juvenile record is routinely granted. However, if the original defense was not brought under the Juvenile Corrections Act, it cannot be expunged and it remains on his record. I am convinced this is a major legislative oversight. Two juveniles can be convicted of similar crimes, one gets a clean record and the other does not. I don't believe the legislature intended that result, and that needs to change.
I have represented many who have wanted to clean up their past juvenile records and have not been able to do so for this reason. In some cases, I have been able to seal their records so their juvenile past will not affect their future employment, but sealing a record is a matter of a judge's discretion, and some judges just don't feel like granting these motions, even 15 years after the event.
All we need to correct this injustice is an amendment to current law to state that all offenses committed by juveniles may be expunged at age 18 except the type of offenses which are specifically prohibited from expungement under the Juvenile Corrections Act. Problem solved.
Comments
Post a Comment