Summary of Argument

This case presents the question of whether Senate Bill No. 1391 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1012), which eliminated the possibility of transfer to adult criminal court for crimes committed when a minor was 14 or 15 years old, unconstitutionally amended Proposition 57. The characteristics of 14- and 15-year-olds demonstrate that preventing transfer of these youths to adult criminal court is consistent with and furthers the intent of Proposition 57. Scientific research has shown that young adolescents have immature judgment, underdeveloped capacity for self-regulation, particular vulnerability to negative influences and outside pressures, and heightened capacity for change. Consistent with this research, California law has long recognized the special vulnerabilities and deficiencies of young adolescents in numerous contexts. Because of these well-known characteristics of young adolescents, keeping young teens in juvenile court furthers Proposition 57’s goals of promoting public safety, emphasizing rehabilitation, and reducing wasteful spending on prisons, and is consistent with the transfer criteria within which Proposition 57 was enacted.

Summary of Argument

Senate Bill No. 1391 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1012) has raised the question of its constitutionality in amending Proposition 57 by prohibiting the transfer of minors aged 14 and 15 to adult criminal court for offenses committed at those ages.

Research in developmental psychology has established that adolescents in this age group exhibit distinct cognitive and psychosocial characteristics, including:

• Immature judgment

• Deficient self-regulatory abilities

• Susceptibility to external influences

• Enhanced potential for rehabilitation

These findings have been recognized in California law, which acknowledges the vulnerabilities of young adolescents in various contexts. By maintaining jurisdiction over these youths in the juvenile justice system, Senate Bill No. 1391 aligns with Proposition 57's objectives of:

• Enhancing public safety

• Prioritizing rehabilitation

• Curbing excessive prison expenditures

Furthermore, the transfer criteria established in Proposition 57 support the rationale behind Senate Bill No. 1391, emphasizing the need to consider the unique characteristics of young adolescents in determining their amenability to rehabilitation and the appropriate forum for their adjudication.

Summary of Argument

Senate Bill 1391 (SB 1391) made it impossible to transfer minors aged 14 or 15 to adult criminal court. This raises the question of whether SB 1391 violates Proposition 57, which allowed for such transfers.

Research shows that 14- and 15-year-olds have certain characteristics that make them different from adults:

• Immature judgment: They may not fully understand the consequences of their actions.

• Underdeveloped self-control: They may be more impulsive and less able to resist peer pressure.

• Vulnerability to negative influences: They are more easily influenced by others, including adults who may exploit them.

• Capacity for change: They have a greater potential for rehabilitation than adults.

California law has recognized these differences in various ways, such as setting a higher age for driving and voting. Keeping young teens in juvenile court aligns with Proposition 57's goals of:

• Public safety: Rehabilitation in the juvenile system is more effective at reducing recidivism than punishment in adult prisons.

• Rehabilitation: Juvenile courts focus on providing treatment and support to help young offenders change their behavior.

• Fiscal responsibility: It is more cost-effective to rehabilitate youth in the juvenile system than to incarcerate them in adult prisons.

Therefore, SB 1391 is consistent with Proposition 57's intent to prioritize rehabilitation and protect the unique vulnerabilities of young adolescents.

Summary of Argument

In 2018, California passed a law called Senate Bill No. 1391. This law said that kids who are 14 or 15 years old can't be tried as adults for crimes they commit. But some people said this law was wrong because it went against another law called Proposition 57.

Scientists have found that teenagers' brains are still developing. They don't always make good decisions, they can be easily influenced by others, and they have a better chance of changing their behavior than adults.

Because of this, California has laws that protect young teens. For example, they can't drive or vote.

The new law, Senate Bill No. 1391, is meant to help teens by keeping them in the juvenile justice system, where they can get help and rehabilitation. This is also better for public safety because it helps teens become responsible adults instead of criminals.

Summary of Argument

There's a law that says kids who are 14 or 15 years old can't be tried in adult court, even if they do something really bad. Some people think this is wrong, but others say it's a good idea.

Why? Because scientists have learned that young teens are different from adults. Their brains aren't fully grown yet, so they don't always make good decisions. They're also more likely to be influenced by others and to change their behavior for the better.

In the past, California has recognized that young teens are different. That's why there are special rules for them in many areas, like driving and working.

Keeping young teens in juvenile court, where they can get help and rehabilitation, is better for them and for society. It helps keep them safe, teaches them to be responsible, and saves money that would be wasted on prisons.