BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 382 Hearing Date: May 12, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Lara |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |April 20, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |No |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|AA |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Juveniles: Fitness Criteria
HISTORY
Source: Human Rights Watch
Prior Legislation:SB 1151 (Kuehl) - Vetoed, 2004
Support: The Anti-Recidivism Coalition; Alliance for Boys and
Men of Color; Annie E. Casey Foundation Juvenile
Justice Strategy Group; Asian Americans Advancing
Justice - Asian Law Caucus; Asian Americans Advancing
Justice - Los Angeles; California Catholic
Conference; California Public Defenders Association;
Californians United for a Responsible Budget;
Campaign for Youth Justice; Center on Juvenile and
Criminal Justice; Children Now; Children's Defense
Fund California; East Bay Children's Law Offices;
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights; Friends Committee
on Legislation of California; Los Angeles Regional
SB 382 (Lara) PageB of 7
Reentry Partnership; National Center for Youth Law;
National African American Drug Policy Coalition;
National Employment Law Project; Office of
Restorative Justice of the Archdiocese of Los
Angeles; Post-Conviction Justice Project - USC Gould
School of Law; Root and Rebound; Youth Justice
Coalition; Youth Law Center; Policy Link; several
individuals
Opposition:None known
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to further describe factors the
court may consider in determining whether a person is fit or
unfit for juvenile court, as specified.
Current law generally provides a process for the juvenile court
to determine whether minors who are 14 years of age and older
and alleged to have committed a crime are fit or unfit for
juvenile court. (Welfare and Institutions Code ("WIC") § 707.)
Depending upon the age of the minor, the alleged offense and
the minor's offense history, the minor may or may not be
presumed unfit for juvenile court; where a minor is presumed to
be unfit for juvenile court, the burden of rebutting the
presumption is on the child, to demonstrate by a preponderance
of the evidence. (Id.; See also Ca. Rules of Court, rule
1483.)
Under current law, in any case where the juvenile court
determines fitness, the court must examine whether the minor
would or would not be amenable to the care, treatment, and
training program available through the juvenile court, based
upon an evaluation of the following criteria:
1. The degree of criminal sophistication exhibited by the
minor.
SB 382 (Lara) PageC of 7
2. Whether the minor can be rehabilitated prior to the
expiration of the juvenile court's jurisdiction.
3. The minor's previous delinquent history.
4. Success of previous attempts by the juvenile court to
rehabilitate the minor.
5. The circumstances and gravity of the offenses alleged
in the petition to have been committed by the minor. (WIC
§ 707(a)(1); (2); 707(c).)
This bill would revise these statutory provisions to include
discretionary factors the court may consider in making these
determinations, as follows:
With respect to the degree of criminal sophistication
exhibited by the minor (factor #1 above), specify the
following in statute:
". . . the juvenile court may consider any
relevant factor, including, but not limited to,
the minor's age, maturity, intellectual capacity,
and physical, mental, and emotional health at the
time of the alleged offense, the minor's
impetuosity or failure to appreciate risks and
consequences of criminal behavior, the effect of
familial, adult, or peer pressure on the minor's
actions, and the effect of the minor's family and
community environment and childhood trauma on the
minor's criminal sophistication."
With respect to whether the minor can be rehabilitated
prior to the expiration of the juvenile court's
jurisdiction (factor # 2 above), specify the following in
statute:
". . . the juvenile court may consider any
relevant factor, including, but not limited to, the
SB 382 (Lara) PageD of 7
minor's potential to grow and mature."
With respect to the minor's prior delinquent history
(factor # 3 above), specify the following in statute:
". . . the juvenile court may consider any
relevant factor, including, but not limited to,
the seriousness of the minor's previous delinquent
history and the effect of the minor's family and
community environment and childhood trauma on the
minor's previous delinquent behavior."
With respect to the success of previous attempts
by the juvenile court to rehabilitate the minor
(factor # 4 above), specify the following in statute:
" . . . the juvenile court may consider any
relevant factor, including, but not limited to,
the adequacy of the services previously provided
to address the minor's needs."
With respect to the circumstances and gravity of
the offense alleged in the petition to have been
committed by the minor (factor # 5 above), this bill
would specify the following in statute:
" . . . the juvenile court may consider any
relevant factor, including, but not limited to,
the level of harm actually caused by the minor,
and the minor's mental and emotional development."
Current law generally provides that a "determination that
the minor is not a fit and proper subject to be dealt with
under the juvenile court law may be based on any one or a
combination of the factors (in current law enumerated
above), . . . " (WIC § 707.)
This bill would revise these provisions to state that this
determination may be based on any one or a combination of
the areas of discretionary consideration added by this
SB 382 (Lara) PageE of 7
bill.
Current law generally provides a process, termed "reverse
remand," under which a minor who has been referred to the
adult criminal court for prosecution without a court order
that the minor has been found unfit for the juvenile court
may be remanded back to the juvenile court if the minor is
convicted of a lesser offense, as specified. (Penal Code
§ 1170.17.)
This bill would incorporate the additional factors
described above into this provision, as specified. This
bill would provide that the circumstances and gravity of
the offense for which the person has been convicted may
include "but is not limited to, consideration of the
actual behavior of the person, the mental state of the
person, the person's degree of involvement in the crime,
the level of harm actually caused by the person, and the
person's mental and emotional development."
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the past eight years, this Committee has scrutinized
legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential
impact on prison overcrowding. Mindful of the United
States Supreme Court ruling and federal court orders
relating to the state's ability to provide a
constitutional level of health care to its inmate
population and the related issue of prison overcrowding,
this Committee has applied its "ROCA" policy as a
content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure
that the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing
prison overcrowding.
On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California
to reduce its in-state adult institution population to
137.5% of design capacity by February 28, 2016, as
follows:
143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
SB 382 (Lara) PageF of 7
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28,
2015; and,
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28,
2016.
In February of this year the administration reported that
as "of February 11, 2015, 112,993 inmates were housed in
the State's 34 adult institutions, which amounts to 136.6%
of design bed capacity, and 8,828 inmates were housed in
out-of-state facilities. This current population is now
below the court-ordered reduction to 137.5% of design bed
capacity." (Defendants' February 2015 Status Report In
Response To February 10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD
PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn.
omitted)).
While significant gains have been made in reducing the
prison population, the state now must stabilize these
advances and demonstrate to the federal court that
California has in place the "durable solution" to prison
overcrowding "consistently demanded" by the court.
(Opinion Re: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part
Defendants' Request For Extension of December 31, 2013
Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court,
Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (2-10-14). The
Committee's consideration of bills that may impact the
prison population therefore will be informed by the
following questions:
Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has
contributed to reducing the prison population;
Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public
safety or criminal activity for which there is no
other reasonable, appropriate remedy;
Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is
directly dangerous to the physical safety of others
SB 382 (Lara) PageG of 7
for which there is no other reasonably appropriate
sanction;
Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem
or legislative drafting error; and
Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any
other reasonably appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1.Stated Need for This Bill
The author states:
SB 382 would expand the existing fitness criteria
used by judges when determining whether a juvenile
offender should be tried in juvenile or adult court,
so that judges may consider more comprehensive
information about the juvenile's ability to
rehabilitate.
Before the passage of Proposition 21, youth in
California were sent to the adult criminal justice
system only after having a "fitness" hearing where a
judge determined which justice system the youth
should be sent to using specified criteria, known as
fitness criteria. Currently judges determine whether
a juvenile offender's case should be heard in
juvenile or adult court in approximately 25 percent
of cases. The criteria that is used when a fitness
hearing does occur is outdated and not based on
current law or cognitive science.
The decision to send a juvenile to the adult system
is a very serious one. The juvenile court system is
focused on rehabilitation and provides far more
SB 382 (Lara) PageH of 7
supports and opportunities for juvenile offenders
compared to adult criminal facilities. Recent U.S.
and California Supreme court cases, as well as
cognitive science has found that juveniles are more
able to reform and become productive members of
society, if allowed to access the appropriate
rehabilitation.
SB 382 would update the existing 5 criteria used by
judges when determining the fitness of an individual
to enter the adult criminal justice system to ensure
judges consider, such as the actual behavior of the
of the individual and their ability to grow, mature,
and be rehabilitated. It is critical that judges
have the most relevant information and full picture
of an individual, before they make the critical
decision of which jurisdiction a juvenile offender
should be charged in.
2. Background: Jurisdiction Over Minors Alleged to Have
Committed Crimes
The purpose of juvenile court law is to provide for the
protection and safety of the public and each minor under
the jurisdiction of the court and to preserve and
strengthen family ties when possible, as specified. (WIC
§ 202 (a).) "Minors under the jurisdiction of the
juvenile court as a consequence of delinquent conduct
shall, in conformity with the interests of public safety
and protection, receive care, treatment, and guidance that
is consistent with their best interest, that holds them
accountable for their behavior, and that is appropriate
for their circumstances. This guidance may include
punishment that is consistent with the rehabilitative
objectives of this chapter." (WIC § 202(b).)
California law generally provides that persons under the
age of 18 who are alleged to have committed a crime is
SB 382 (Lara) PageI of 7
within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.<1>
However, California law contains three discrete mechanisms
for remanding minors to adult criminal court:
Statutory or legislative waiver requires that
minors 14 years of age or older who are alleged to
have committed specified murder and sex offenses be
prosecuted in adult criminal court (WIC § 602(a));
Prosecutorial waiver gives prosecutors the
discretion to file cases against minors 14 and older,
depending upon their age, alleged offense and offense
history, in juvenile or adult criminal court (WIC §
707(d)); and
Judicial waiver gives courts the discretion to
evaluate whether a minor is unfit for juvenile court
based on specified criteria. (WIC § 707 (a), (b) and
(c).)
Prior to 2000, California was strictly a judicial waiver
state; any minor tried in adult criminal court first had
to be found unfit by the juvenile court. In 1999, SB 334
(Alpert) - Ch. 996, Stats. 1999, introduced statutory
waiver in California for certain murder and sex offenses
personally committed by a minor 14 years of age or older.
On March 7, 2000, most provisions of SB 334 were chaptered
out by the passage of Proposition 21, which enacted the
waiver structure described above that is current law.
3. Fitness Criteria
The fitness criteria set forth in statute are the basis by
which the juvenile court evaluates whether a minor is
------------------------
<1> An amendment in 1971 lowered the jurisdictional age from 21
to 18. (1971 Cal. Stats. 3766, c. 1748, § 66.)
SB 382 (Lara) PageJ of 7
amenable to the care, treatment and training available
through the juvenile court. A minor is not required to
establish innocence in order to show amenability to the
juvenile court system, and the fact that a minor did
commit the charged offense does not automatically require
a finding of unfitness. (People v. Superior Court (Jones)
18 Cal.4th 667, 682 (1998).) A finding of amenability
must be based on evidence and supported by findings
addressed to each and every one of the criteria. (Id. at
683.)
Though the standards for determining a minor's
fitness for treatment as a juvenile lack explicit
definition . . . it is clear from the statute that
the court must go beyond the circumstances
surrounding the offense itself and the minor's
possible denial of involvement in such offense. The
court may consider a minor's past record of
delinquency, and must take into account his behavior
pattern as described in the probation officer's
report. (H. v. Superior Court (1970) 3 Cal. 3d 709,
714 (citations omitted; emphasis in original.)
This bill would add discretionary, non-exclusive
considerations for the court to consider in each of the
five existing fitness criteria. None of the
considerations proposed by this bill would appear to be
inconsistent with the current criteria.
SHOULD THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A MINOR IF FIT
OR UNFIT FOR JUVENILE COURT BE FURTHER DESCRIBED IN
STATUTE, AS PROPOSED BY THIS BILL?
4. Support
The Youth Law Center, which supports this bill, states in
part:
SB 382 (Lara) PageK of 7
In our experience, there is tremendous need for
clarification of the fitness criteria. For example,
the fifth criterion - the gravity and circumstances
of the offense - is often misinterpreted to mean that
any person alleged to have committed a serious
offense must be found unfit. But that is not
correct. In fact, even a young person who has
committed a serious offense should be retained in
juvenile court if he or she is capable of being
rehabilitated, using the other fitness criteria.
There is tremendous need to clarify this in the
statutory criteria.
Also, since the current fitness criteria were
written, there is much more useful guidance on the
impact of immaturity and adolescent development on
behavior and capacity for change. A series of
Supreme Court cases, culminating in Miller v. Alabama
(2012) 567 U.S. ___, ___, 132 S.Ct. 2455, has
recognized the importance of considering the
hallmarks of youthfulness in making decisions about
young people. This includes issues such as
impulsivity, failure to appreciate risks and dangers,
and peer pressure. The Supreme Court cases also
highlight the transitory nature of adolescent
delinquency - the fact that the vast majority of
young people leave delinquency behind as they reach
adulthood.
5. Technical Amendments
Senate Engrossing and Enrolling has submitted purely
technical amendments that it asks the Committee to make.
-- END -