Summary of Argument

On March 7, 2000, Proposition 21, the Gang Violence and Prevention Act of 1998, was approved by ballot initiative. Among other things, Proposition 21 provides for increased prosecution of juveniles in adult criminal court, increased incarceration of youth in adult correctional facilities, "direct filing" by prosecutors in adult criminal court for certain specified offenses by juveniles, and determination by prosecutors of both formal charges against juveniles and available sentencing options.

Proponents of Proposition 21 argued that passage would enhance public safety. In point of fact, empirical research demonstrates that prosecution of juveniles in adult criminal court actually increases recidivism, thereby reducing public safety. In addition, prosecuting young people in criminal court and incarcerating them in adult facilities places them at significant risk of physical and emotional injury. Moreover, Section 26 of Proposition 21 provides no guidelines for prosecutors in making decisions which youth to transfer to adult court, and thereby allows prosecutors to ignore developmental differences between adolescents and adults, as well as individual differences among adolescents. In this brief, amici present the empirical research on these issues.

Amici are also concerned that prosecution of juveniles in adult criminal court, particularly as authorized by Section 26 of Proposition 21, will exacerbate racial disparities for youth in the justice system. Section 26 allows prosecutors to decide both the formal charges to file against a juvenile and—because prosecutors can charge in juvenile court or "direct file" in adult criminal court—the sentencing options available to the juvenile. This is important because youth of color are overrepresented throughout the justice system, and empirical research demonstrates that minority youth receive different and more severe treatment than white youth, even when charged with similar offenses. Moreover, the disparities accumulate, so that racial disparities at the point of arrest are added to the racial disparities at the point of determining whether to detain a youth before adjudication, which in turn are added to the disparities that occur when formal charging decisions are made by prosecutors, which in turn are added to the disparities that occur when prosecutors make decisions whether to waive youth for prosecution in adult criminal court, and which are finally added to the disparities that occur at disposition and in decisions whether to incarcerate. As a result, the most authoritative empirical analysis demonstrates that youth of color are more than three times as likely as white youth to be arrested, processed through the system, and ordered into residential placement.

Empirical research in California indicates that these accumulated racial disparities occur in the justice system in this state. Allowing prosecutors to make the decisions at two critical points in the justice system, to assume both the executive charging function and the judicial sentencing function, is inimical to the administration of justice and is likely to exacerbate racial disparities in the system. One check on racial disparities in the system is the diversity of decision-makers at key points in the system—police, prosecutors, judges, corrections agencies. Consolidation of multiple functions into a single office, particularly the office most directly responsible in the legal system for obtaining convictions of alleged offenders, is a recipe for potential abuses of discretion.

Summary of Argument

Proposition 21, the Gang Violence and Prevention Act of 1998, passed in California in 2000, has been the subject of debate due to its implications for juvenile justice. Proponents argue that it enhances public safety, while opponents contend that it increases recidivism, endangers youth, and exacerbates racial disparities in the justice system.

Empirical research demonstrates that prosecuting juveniles in adult court is counterproductive to public safety, as it increases recidivism rates. Moreover, the act's provision for the incarceration of youth in adult facilities places them at risk for physical and emotional harm.

Section 26 of Proposition 21 grants prosecutors extensive discretion in determining which juveniles are transferred to adult court, without providing clear guidelines for making these decisions. This lack of transparency allows prosecutors to disregard developmental differences between adolescents and adults, potentially resulting in unfair treatment of juveniles.

Proposition 21's authorization for prosecutorial discretion in both charging and sentencing decisions raises concerns about racial disparities in the justice system. The concentration of power in the hands of prosecutors, coupled with the overrepresentation of youth of color in the system, is likely to further exacerbate existing racial disparities.

The consolidation of multiple functions, including charging and sentencing, within the prosecutor's office poses a significant risk of abuse. Prosecutors, the actors most responsible for securing convictions, are granted significant power, potentially leading to biased decision-making and increased racial disparities.

Summary of Argument

Proposition 21, the Gang Violence and Prevention Act of 1998, was approved by California voters in 2000. The proposition allows for increased prosecution of juveniles in adult criminal court, increased incarceration of youth in adult correctional facilities, "direct filing" by prosecutors in adult criminal court for certain specified offenses by juveniles, and determination by prosecutors of both formal charges against juveniles and available sentencing options.

Proponents of Proposition 21 argued that passage would enhance public safety. However, empirical research demonstrates that prosecution of juveniles in adult criminal court actually increases recidivism, thereby reducing public safety. Additionally, prosecuting young people in criminal court and incarcerating them in adult facilities places them at significant risk of physical and emotional injury.

Furthermore, Section 26 of Proposition 21 provides no guidelines for prosecutors in making decisions which youth to transfer to adult court, allowing prosecutors to ignore developmental differences between adolescents and adults, as well as individual differences among adolescents.

The prosecution of juveniles in adult criminal court, particularly as authorized by Section 26 of Proposition 21, is likely to exacerbate racial disparities for youth in the justice system. Youth of color are overrepresented throughout the justice system, and research demonstrates that minority youth receive different and more severe treatment than white youth, even when charged with similar offenses. The disparities accumulate throughout the justice system, from arrest to sentencing.

Research in California indicates that these accumulated racial disparities occur in the justice system. Allowing prosecutors to make decisions at two critical points in the justice system, to assume both the executive charging function and the judicial sentencing function, is inimical to the administration of justice and is likely to exacerbate racial disparities in the system.

Summary of Argument

Proposition 21, also known as the Gang Violence and Prevention Act of 1998, was approved by California voters in 2000. This proposition allows for stricter punishment for young people who commit crimes, including trying them as adults.

People who supported Proposition 21 believed it would improve safety. However, studies show that trying young people in adult court actually makes them more likely to commit crimes again, which makes communities less safe. Additionally, sending young people to adult prisons puts them at risk of getting hurt or suffering emotional problems.

Proposition 21 gives prosecutors a lot of power to decide how to punish young people. This is concerning because prosecutors often treat young people of color differently than white young people, even when they commit the same crimes. This means that Proposition 21 could make racial disparities in the justice system even worse.

Studies in California show that young people of color are treated differently in the justice system than white youth. Giving prosecutors more power over the justice system could increase these disparities because they are more likely to punish young people of color more severely.

Summary of Argument

In 2000, California passed a law called Proposition 21. It changed the way the state deals with young people who break the law.

People who liked the law said it would make California safer. But, studies show that sending young people to adult court actually makes them more likely to break the law again. This doesn’t make things safer.

Also, sending kids to adult court and jails can be really bad for them. They can be hurt or traumatized. Proposition 21 doesn’t give clear rules to decide which kids go to adult court, so it could be unfair.

There’s also a problem with race. Kids of color are treated differently by the justice system than white kids. This problem is even worse with Proposition 21 because it lets prosecutors make all the decisions about charges and punishments. That means that kids of color are more likely to be arrested, put in jail, and punished more harshly.

It’s important to have different people making decisions at different points in the legal system. Proposition 21 gives one person, the prosecutor, too much power. This can lead to problems and unfairness.