BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 382|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 382
Author: Lara (D)
Amended: 5/19/15
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 5-2, 5/12/15
AYES: Hancock, Leno, Liu, McGuire, Monning
NOES: Anderson, Stone
SUBJECT: Juveniles: jurisdiction: sentencing
SOURCE: Human Rights Watch
DIGEST: This bill describes factors the court may consider in
determining whether a person is fit or unfit for juvenile court,
as specified.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)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
SB 382
Page 2
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.)
2)Provides that 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:
a) The degree of criminal sophistication exhibited by the
minor.
b) Whether the minor can be rehabilitated prior to the
expiration of the juvenile court's jurisdiction.
c) The minor's previous delinquent history.
d) Success of previous attempts by the juvenile court to
rehabilitate the minor.
e) 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).)
1)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.)
2)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:
1)Revises the statutory provisions described in existing law #2
above to include discretionary factors the court may consider
in making these determinations, as follows:
SB 382
Page 3
a) With respect to the degree of criminal sophistication
exhibited by the minor (factor #2 (a) above), specifies 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."
b) With respect to whether the minor can be rehabilitated
prior to the expiration of the juvenile court's
jurisdiction (factor #2 (b) above), specifies the following
in statute: ". . . the juvenile court may consider any
relevant factor, including, but not limited to, the minor's
potential to grow and mature."
c) With respect to the minor's prior delinquent history
(factor #2 (c) above), specifies 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."
d) With respect to the success of previous attempts by the
juvenile court to rehabilitate the minor (factor #2 (d)
above), specifies 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."
e) With respect to the circumstances and gravity of the
offense alleged in the petition to have been committed by
the minor (factor #2 (e) above), this bill specifies 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."
SB 382
Page 4
1)Revise the provisions in existing law #3 above to state that
this determination may be based on any one or a combination of
the areas of discretionary consideration added by this bill.
2)Incorporates the additional factors described above into the
provision described in existing law #4 above, as specified,
and provides 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."
Background
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 within the
jurisdiction of the juvenile court. However, California law
contains three discrete mechanisms for remanding minors to adult
criminal court:
1)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));
2)Prosecutorial waiver gives prosecutors the discretion to file
SB 382
Page 5
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
3)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).)
The fitness criteria set forth in statute are the basis by which
the juvenile court evaluates whether a minor is 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 adds 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.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:NoLocal: No
SUPPORT: (Verified5/19/15)
The Anti-Recidivism Coalition
Alliance for Boys and Men of Color
SB 382
Page 6
American Civil Liberties Union of California
Annie E. Casey Foundation Juvenile Justice Strategy Group
Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus
Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Los Angeles
California Catholic Conference of Bishops
California Public Defenders Association
Californians for Safety and Justice
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 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: (Verified5/19/15)
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Supporters state in part, "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
SB 382
Page 7
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."
Prepared by:Alison Anderson / PUB. S. /
5/21/15 10:15:42
**** END ****