Youths cannot be tried as adults
Jurists unanimously uphold amendment to Prop. 57 for juveniles ages 16 and under
SAN FRANCISCO >> In a landmark ruling, the California Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a state law barring children younger than 16 from being charged as adults, rejecting arguments from prosecutors that it unconstitutionally revoked judges’ authority to decide in which court to charge a youth offender.
The ruling is a victory for justice-reform proponents, who championed the law, Senate Bill 1391 — passed by the Legislature in 2018 and which took effect in 2019 — on the basis that it does not improve public safety to charge teens as adults, founded on prevailing research about how their brains aren’t fully developed.
The 7-0 decision stemmed from a case in Ventura County where a 15-year-old was charged with two counts of murder.
State Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, who authored SB 1391 as a state senator, lauded the outcome in a tweet Thursday.
“As I said when my bill #SB1391 passed the Legislature — ALL children are redeemable,” Lara wrote. “Today the Supreme Court upheld that principle and took another huge step toward fairness in our juvenile justice system.”
The case hinged on an interpretation of Proposition 57, passed by voters in 2016, which changed rules for juvenile justice, revised sentencing rules and changed how good behavior credits are calculated for jail and prison sentences. At issue before the court was whether Lara’s bill legitimately amended
that voter-approved proposition, in line with its original intent. The court said it did.
“The amendment is fully consistent with and furthers Proposition 57’s fundamental purposes of promoting rehabilitation of youthful offenders and reducing the prison population,” Associate Justice Joshua Groban wrote in the decision. “We therefore uphold Senate Bill 1391 as a permissible amendment to Proposition 57.”
The differences between adult and juvenile court are vast; people convicted as adults are eligible for life sentences while people convicted as juveniles are rarely held past their 25th birthday, even for murders. The adult court system is more punitive by nature whereas juvenile court systems place a greater emphasis on rehabilitation.
“The opinion means the state will not return to a practice that is harmful to youth and communities. Now the state will focus on rehabilitating young people,” Elizabeth Calvin, a senior advocate for Human Rights Watch, said in a statement. “Research shows that rehabilitation works: Youth who are sent to the adult system miss out on the treatment, education and services offered in the juvenile system. Youth kept in the juvenile system are less likely to commit new crimes.”
Charisse Domingo, a participatory defense organizer with the South Bay socialjustice organization Silicon Valley De-Bug, which supported the bill, said that “more important than its constitutionality, at its heart SB 1391 was always about believing in the potential of young people to grow and thrive, and reversing the punitive and racist punishment system that equates public safety with incarceration.”
Much of the opposition to SB 1391 was shouldered by county prosecutors, such as Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen and Santa Cruz County District Attorney Jeff Rosell, who called Thursday’s decision outrageous, and families of victims of high-profile killings involving teen defendants. Those cases included that of Jae Williams, one of two teens who stabbed 15-year-old Michael Russell in San Jose 2009 in what became known as the “thrill kill,” or Devil Boys murder and the 2015 slaying of Madyson Middleton in Santa Cruz, allegedly by then-15-year-old Adrian Gonzalez.
“Based on the way it looks right now, the Supreme Court ruling on Senate Bill 1391 is controlling. It is sort of definitive,” Rosell said. “It affects not just (the Gonzalez case), but a few other cases that we have in this office and numerous cases across the state.”
Not all prosecutors agree. After the law took effect, a prosecutor in Contra Costa County refused to preside over a murder plea deal where a 15-yearold boy was sentenced to seven years for murdering a 20-year-old woman. District Attorney Diana Becton disciplined him after finding his refusal had disobeyed her order not to challenge the constitutionality of the law. In a statement Thursday, Becton praised the high court decision.
“Today’s unanimous decision by the Supreme Court is an important moment for the criminal justice system to give children a chance at rehabilitation for crimes they committed during their youth,” she said. “The juvenile justice system currently is not working.”