BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 114|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 114
Author: Carter (D), et al
Amended: 8/19/09 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 3-2, 6/16/09 (FAIL)
AYES: Leno, Cedillo, Hancock
NOES: Benoit, Huff
NO VOTE RECORDED: Steinberg, Wright
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 5-2, 7/14/09
AYES: Leno, Cedillo, Hancock, Steinberg, Wright
NOES: Benoit, Huff
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 57-18, 5/26/09 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Juvenile justice: restorative justice
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill authorizes counties to adopt a
restorative justice program for juvenile offenders, as
specified.
ANALYSIS : Under current law, 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
juvenile court and to preserve and strengthen the minor's
CONTINUED
AB 114
Page
2
family ties whenever possible, removing the minor from the
custody of his or her parents only when necessary for his
or her welfare or for the safety and protection of the
public." (Section 202 of the Welfare and Institutions Code
[WIC])
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. (Id.)
Current law expressly defines the scope and nature of
"punishment" in the juvenile court:
As used in this chapter, "punishment" means the
imposition of sanctions. It shall not include a court
order to place a child in foster care as defined by
Section 727.3. Permissible sanctions may include the
following:
(1) Payment of a fine by the minor.
(2) Rendering of compulsory service without compensation
performed for the benefit of the community by the minor.
(3) Limitations on the minor's liberty imposed as a
condition of probation or parole.
(4) Commitment of the minor to a local detention or
treatment facility, such as a juvenile hall, camp, or
ranch.
(5) Commitment of the minor to the Department of the
Youth Authority.
"Punishment," for the purposes of this chapter, does not
include retribution. (Id.)
Current law provides that when a minor is adjudged a
delinquent ward of the court, "the court may make any and
all reasonable orders for the care, supervision, custody,
conduct, maintenance, and support of the minor, ?" (WIC
Section 727) The juvenile court has broad discretion in
imposing probation conditions. ( In re Josue S. (1999) 72
AB 114
Page
3
Cal.App.4th 168)
This bill enacts a new statutory provision authorizing a
county to "adopt a restorative justice program to address
the needs of minors, victims, and the community," with the
following features:
This bill provides that the "restorative justice program
shall be implemented through a restorative justice protocol
developed by the juvenile court in conjunction with the
prosecutor, public defender, probation department,
representatives from victims' groups, law enforcement,
community organizations and service providers, restorative
justice groups, and clinicians with expertise in adolescent
development."
This bill requires that the "protocol shall address all of
the following:
(1) The formation of a restorative justice council.
(2) The process to be employed in any case coming before
the council.
(3) The rights of minors.
(4) The rights of any victims involved in the case.
(5) Confidentiality issues.
(6) Timeliness for case processing.
(7) The scope of services of, and orders that may be
imposed by, the restorative justice council.
(8) The roles of the court, prosecutor, and defense counsel
in relation to the council.
(9) Qualifications and the selection process for
restorative justice council members.
(10) The process for evaluating compliance with the
program.
(11) The process for handling any failure to adhere to the
program directed by the restorative justice council."
This bill requires that the "program in each case shall
seek to repair the harm to the victim, the minor, and the
community caused by the behavior bringing the minor before
the juvenile court."
This bill requires that the "program requirements shall be
tailored to the age, mental capacity, and developmental
AB 114
Page
4
maturity of the minor, the nature of the offense, and the
resources available to the minor to accomplish the goals of
this section."
This bill provides that minors "may be referred to the
restorative justice program as part of the court's order
for informal supervision pursuant to Section 654.2, the
court's order for nonwardship probation under subdivision
(a) of Section 725, the court's dispositional order under
Section 727, or the court's order for deferred entry of
judgment under Section 790."
This bill provides that if "the court orders the care,
custody, and control of the minor to be under the
supervision of the probation officer for foster care
placement ? the minor may be referred to the restorative
justice program only as follows:
(1) To the extent that participation in the program is
consistent with both the minor's case plan developed
pursuant to Section 706.5 and any provision of
reunification services to the minor and his or her family
pursuant to Section 727.2.
(2) To the extent that participation in the program does
not result in the loss of federal financial participation
for the placement of the minor."
This bill provides that no "General Fund moneys shall be
used to fund a restorative justice program established
pursuant to this bill. Nothing in this section is intended
to restrict the ability of courts or counties to develop or
maintain existing programs or strategies for juvenile
offenders that incorporate restorative justice principles."
This bill states specified uncodified legislative findings
relating to restorative justice principles.
Prior Legislation
The author carried a similar bill last year, AB 360, which
was vetoed by the Governor. The veto message stated:
"This bill would allow counties to establish restorative
justice programs. While I am open to prevention and
AB 114
Page
5
treatment programs which are proven effective, the
principles stated in this bill appear to emphasize
alternatives to incarceration, without ensuring public
safety. It is also unclear whether the restorative
justice program, as proposed in this bill, is limited to
first or second-time, nonviolent offenders.
"I urge the Legislature to give further attention to
these important issues that help shape the juvenile
justice system.
"For these reasons I am unable to sign this bill."
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/17/09)
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal
Employees, AFL-CIO
California Catholic Conference of Bishops
California State Conference of the NAACP
California State PTA
Fountain of Life
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Juvenile Court Judges of California
Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety
Youth Law Center
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/17/09)
Department of Finance
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The author states in part:
"? Both the juvenile court and the juvenile justice
systems operate under a retributive justice philosophy
and under the traditional individual treatment mission.
Both approaches have failed to satisfy basic needs of
individual crime victims, the community, and juvenile
offenders.
?
"The Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ) Model
AB 114
Page
6
outlines an alternative philosophy, restorative justice,
and a new mission, "the balanced approach," which
requires juvenile justice professionals to devote
attention to:
" Enabling offenders to make amends to their victims
and community.
" Increasing offender competencies.
" Protecting the public through processes in which
individual victims, the community, and offenders are
all active participants.
"The BARJ Model responds to many issues raised by the
victims' movement, including concerns that victims have
little input into the resolution of their own cases,
rarely feel heard, and often receive no restitution or
expression of remorse from the offender.
"The balanced approach is based on an understanding of
crime as an act against the victim and the community.
Practitioners have used techniques consistent with this
approach for years; however, they have lacked a coherent
philosophical framework that supports restorative
practice and provides direction to guide all aspects of
juvenile justice practice. The BARJ Model provides an
overarching vision and guidance for daily decisions.
"People who work on the front lines of the system are
faced daily with the frustration of seeing growing
numbers of young people involved in criminal behavior,
youth who leave the system with little hope for real
change, and countless victims and community members who
are left out of the process. That frustration has
inspired many to work toward changing organizational
culture, values, and programs to reflect a more balanced
and restorative approach to juvenile justice."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : In its analysis of this bill,
the Department of Finance notes that while it has no fiscal
concerns with this bill, DOF opposes the bill because it
does not address the concerns raised in the Governor's veto
last session of an almost identical bill carried by the
author.
AB 114
Page
7
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Ammiano, Arambula, Beall, Blakeslee, Block,
Blumenfield, Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero, Charles
Calderon, Carter, Chesbro, Conway, Coto, Davis, De La
Torre, De Leon, Emmerson, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fong,
Fuentes, Furutani, Galgiani, Gilmore, Hall, Hayashi,
Hernandez, Hill, Huber, Huffman, Jones, Krekorian, Lieu,
Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Monning, Nava, Nielsen,
John A. Perez, V. Manuel Perez, Portantino, Price,
Ruskin, Salas, Saldana, Skinner, Solorio, Swanson,
Torlakson, Torres, Torrico, Tran, Yamada, Bass
NOES: Adams, Anderson, Bill Berryhill, Tom Berryhill,
Duvall, Fletcher, Fuller, Gaines, Garrick, Hagman,
Knight, Logue, Nestande, Niello, Silva, Smyth, Audra
Strickland, Villines
NO VOTE RECORDED: Cook, DeVore, Harkey, Jeffries, Miller
RJG:mw 8/19/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****