BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2011-2012 Regular Session B
3
2
4
AB 324 (Buchanan)
As Amended February 7, 2012
Hearing date: February 9, 2012
Welfare and Institutions Code (URGENCY)
AA:mc
DIVISION OF JUVENILE FACILITIES:
COMMITMENT AND HOUSING OF JUVENILE SEX OFFENDERS
HISTORY
Source: California District Attorneys Association; Chief
Probation Officers of California
Prior Legislation: SB 81 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review)
- Ch. 175, Stats. 2007
AB 191 (Committee on Budget) - Ch. 257, Stats. 2007
Support: Chief Probation Officers for the Counties of Mariposa,
Monterey, Sacramento,
San Francisco, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Sutter;
Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local
1000; Peace Officers Research Association of
California; State Coalition of Probation Organizations
Opposition:California Public Defenders Association (unless
amended); California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
KEY ISSUES
(More)
AB 324 (Buchanan)
PageB
SHOULD JUVENILE OFFENDERS WHO ARE ADJUDICATED WARDS OF THE
JUVENILE COURT FOR A REGISTERABLE SEX CRIME, AS SPECIFIED, BE
EXPRESSLY ELIGIBLE FOR COMMITMENT TO THE DIVISION OF JUVENILE
FACILITIES ("DJF")?
SHOULD DJF BE AUTHORIZED TO FURNISH HOUSING FOR WARDS OF THE
JUVENILE COURT AFFECTED BY THE RECENT SUPREME COURT CASE, IN RE
C.H. , (DEC. 2011) 53 Cal.4th 94, PURSUANT TO A CONTRACTUAL
AGREEMENT BETWEEN DJJ AND A COUNTY, AS SPECIFIED?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to address the recent California
Supreme Court decision in In re C.H ., (2011) 53 Cal.4th 94, by
1) expressly authorizing the commitment to the Division of
Juvenile Facilities of juveniles offenders who have been
adjudicated to be wards of the juvenile court for a registerable
sex offense, as specified; and 2) authorizing DJF to enter into
contracts with counties to furnish housing to certain juvenile
sex offenders committed to DJF, as specified.
Current law generally authorizes the juvenile court to order
specified types of treatment for minors adjudged to be
delinquent wards of the court. (Welfare and Institutions Code
("WIC")
� 731.)
Current statute authorizes the juvenile court to commit a
delinquent ward to the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Facilities ("DJF"), if the
ward has committed an offense described in subdivision (b) of
Section 707 and is not otherwise ineligible for commitment to
the division under Section 733. (WIC � 731(a)(4).)
This bill would revise this provision to expressly allow the
juvenile court to commit a delinquent ward to DJF if the ward
has committed a sex offense, as described in subdivision (c) of
(More)
AB 324 (Buchanan)
PageC
Section 290.008 of the Penal Code.<1>
Current law provides that a ward of the juvenile court who meets
any condition described
below shall not be committed to DJF:
(a) The ward is under 11 years of age.
(b) The ward is suffering from any contagious, infectious, or
other disease that would probably endanger the lives or health
of the other inmates of any facility.
(c) The ward has been or is adjudged a ward of the court
pursuant to Section 602, and the most recent offense alleged in
any petition and admitted or found to be true by the court is
not described in subdivision (b) of Section 707, unless the
offense is a sex offense set forth in subdivision (c) of
Section 290.008 of the Penal Code. This subdivision shall be
effective on and after September 1, 2007. (WIC � 733.)
This bill would revise subdivision (c) of this section to
instead state, "The ward has been or is adjudged a ward of the
court pursuant to Section 602, and the most recent offense
alleged in any petition and admitted or found to be true by the
court is not described in subdivision (b) of Section 707, unless
the offense is a sex offense set forth in or subdivision (c) of
Section 290.008 of the Penal Code. . . ."
Current law authorizes DJF to enter into contracts with a county
to furnish diagnosis and treatment services and temporary
detention during a period of study to the county for selected
cases of persons eligible for commitment to DJF, as specified.
(WIC � 1752.1.)
Current law further authorizes DJF to enter into contracts with
a county to furnish temporary emergency detention facilities and
necessary services for persons under the age of 18 years who are
---------------------------
<1> Penal Code section 290.008 generally requires persons who
have been adjudicated a delinquent ward of the court for a sex
crime who are discharged or paroled from DJF to register as a
sex offender. Subdivision (c) of section 290.008 enumerates the
sex crimes subject to this section.
(More)
AB 324 (Buchanan)
PageD
in the custody of the county probation officer on a temporary
basis when existing county juvenile facilities are rendered
unsafe or inadequate because of a natural or manmade disaster,
or when the continued presence of the minor or minors in the
county juvenile facilities would, in the opinion of the judge of
the juvenile court having jurisdiction over the minor, of the
chief probation officer of the county, and of the director,
present a significant risk of violence or escape. (WIC �
1752.15.)
This bill would authorize the chief of the Division of Juvenile
Facilities, with approval of the Director of Finance, to "enter
into contracts with any county of this state for the Division of
Juvenile Facilities to furnish housing to a ward who was in the
custody of the Division of Juvenile Facilities on December 12,
2011, and whose commitment was recalled based on both of the
following:
(1) The ward was committed to the Division of Juvenile
Facilities for the commission of an offense described in
subdivision (c) of Section 290.008 of the Penal Code.
(2) The ward has not been adjudged a ward of the court
pursuant to Section 602 for commission of an offense described
in subdivision (b) of Section 707.
This bill would provide in statute that it "is the intent of the
Legislature in enacting this act to address the California
Supreme Court's ruling in In re C.H. (2011) 53 Cal.4th 94."
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation.
As these cases have progressed, prison conditions have
continued to be assailed, and the scrutiny of the federal courts
over California's prisons has intensified.
On June 30, 2005, in a class action lawsuit filed four years
earlier, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California established a Receivership to take
(More)
AB 324 (Buchanan)
PageE
control of the delivery of medical services to all California
state prisoners confined by the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). In December of 2006,
plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against CDCR sought a
court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a
three-judge federal panel issued an order requiring California
to reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design
capacity -- a reduction at that time of roughly 40,000 inmates
-- within two years. The court stayed implementation of its
ruling pending the state's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On May 23, 2011, the United States Supreme Court upheld the
decision of the three-judge panel in its entirety, giving
California two years from the date of its ruling to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity, subject
to the right of the state to seek modifications in appropriate
circumstances.
In response to the unresolved prison capacity crisis, in early
2007 the Senate Committee on Public Safety began holding
legislative proposals which could further exacerbate prison
overcrowding through new or expanded felony prosecutions.
This bill does not aggravate the prison overcrowding crisis
described above.
COMMENTS
1. Stated Purpose for this Bill
The author states in part:
In 2007, via the enactment of SB 81 and AB 191, the
Legislature narrowed the universe of juvenile
offenders that are eligible for commitment to the
Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF). The intent of
those bills was to limit DJF commitments to juvenile
offenders adjudicated for offenses under WIC section
(More)
AB 324 (Buchanan)
PageF
707(b) or sex offenses under PC section 290.008(c)
(the successor statute to PC section 290(d)(3)). This
intent is memorialized by Assembly and Senate Floor
Analyses that include statements such as: "Juvenile
sex offenders are excluded from this change and will
not be impacted by �SB 81]" and "�AB 191] makes
conforming changes to ensure that none of the juvenile
justice reforms contained in the 2007 Corrections
trailer bill affect juveniles adjudicated of a sex
offense as set forth in paragraph (3) of subdivision
(d) of Section 290 of the Penal Code." In other
words, these bills were not meant to exclude sex
offenders from commitment to DJF.
On December 12, 2011, the California Supreme Court
ruled that a juvenile offender may not be committed to
DJF for a sex offense described in PC section
290.008(c) unless the juvenile has also been
adjudicated for a current or prior offense described
in WIC section 707(b). The case is In re C.H. (2011)
53 Cal.4th 94. The Supreme Court, in making its
ruling, read WIC sections 731 and 733 as statutes
determining eligibility and ineligibility,
respectively, for placements at DJF. According to the
Court, the plain language of WIC section 731 only
allows juvenile offenders with a WIC section 707(b)
offense to be committed to DJF. While WIC section 733
does not make a minor with a sex offense ineligible,
the Court held that the lack of ineligibility does not
make a minor eligible for a DJF commitment.
This bill would clarify that a juvenile offender
adjudicated for a specified sex offense may be
committed to the DJF, regardless of whether the
juvenile has also been adjudicated for a current or
prior offense under WIC section 707(b). To ensure
that juvenile offenders who have committed sex
offenses remain eligible for DJF commitment, WIC
sections 731 and 733 must be amended to clarify the
intent of the Legislature in enacting SB 81 and AB
(More)
AB 324 (Buchanan)
PageG
191. AB 324 merely clarifies what most stakeholders
and practitioners understood to be the state of the
law after SB 81 and AB 191, that is, a juvenile
offender with either a WIC section 707(b) offense or a
PC section 290.008(c) sex offense is eligible for
commitment to DJF.
AB 324 also creates a procedure whereby the limited
class of juvenile offenders affected by this ruling
may be housed at DJF pursuant to a contract with their
committing counties. If this measure is not approved,
the sex offender treatment being received by these
wards would be disturbed. Additionally, it appears
that most counties would be ill-prepared to house and
treat these wards locally. (Emphasis in original.)
2. Opposition
The California Public Defenders Association ("CPDA"), which
opposes this bill, submits that the class of sex offenses this
bill would make eligible for DJF commitment is too broad. CPDA
argues in part:
We contend that there are two categories of offenses,
which are included in the list of 290.008 registrable
offenses which should not subject a juvenile to
commitment at DJF. The first is Penal Code section
647.6, a misdemeanor which prohibits annoying or
molesting a person under 18. The second is Penal Code
section 288(a) which most often involves minor
touching between either siblings, or intermarital
families, or relatives. Violations of Penal Code
section 288(a) can occur based on hugging, if the
intent is to arouse that person or child and includes
touching over clothing. It is important to note that
there is no force involved in 288(a) offenses, for
similar actions involving force are charged as
violating Penal Code section 288(b)(1). There are
myriad emotional, psychological, and behavioral
distinctions between juveniles with sexual behavior
(More)
AB 324 (Buchanan)
PageH
problems and adult sex offenders. Accordingly, vastly
different treatment is recommended and proves
successful for juvenile offenders, who, it should be
noted, are much less likely to reoffend than adult
offenders. Specifically, evidence has shown that
community based treatment is far more successful for
juvenile offenders than institutional treatment (such
as they would receive at DJF.) This is in large part
due to concerns regarding "peer contagion" (i.e.
juveniles with minor, unsophisticated offenses (like
so many of the 288 (a)'s) being exposed in an
institutionalized setting to more sophisticated sexual
offenders.) ("The Comprehensive Approach to Sex
Offender Management," The Center for Effective Policy,
2010.) In other words, committing juvenile 288(a)
offenders to DJF, may well lead to unintended and
detrimental consequences for juveniles who otherwise
would be very unlikely to reoffend, and the
communities into which they are ultimately released.
AB 324 presents a false construct, namely that only
DJF provides meaningful and effective sex offender
treatment. In January 2012, Governor Brown released
his budget blueprint which includes the entire
elimination of all DJF prisons for youthful offenders.
Not only does annual cost of housing a child in DJF
approximate $200,000 per child, but the Governor's
proposal to eliminate DJF is rooted in failed attempts
to rehabilitate juvenile offenders and improve public
safety.
Meaningful sex offender treatment for child offenders
can and should take place in the community or in an
alternative residential placement, in programs that
have been evaluated for their effectiveness. Because
it found that C.H. was not statutorily eligible for
DJF placement, the California Supreme Court in In re
C.H. expressly declined to consider whether it was
error to commit C.H. to the DJF without evidence
demonstrating probable benefit to him from his
(More)
AB 324 (Buchanan)
PageI
commitment and/or without adequately considering
alternative placements. But California's worsening
budget woes and our obligation to provide meaningful
and effective treatment to children in delinquency
proceedings, even those charged with committing sex
offenses requires a real commitment to treatment that
most effectively utilizes precious taxpayer dollars
and is not focused on punitive principles of
retribution. . . .
3. What This Bill Would Do
As explained above, this bill responds to the recent decision in
In re C.H ., (Dec. 2011) 53 Cal.4th 94, in which the California
Supreme Court held that current law did not authorize the
commitment of a juvenile sex offender to the Division of
Juvenile Facilities ("DJF") because the juvenile was not
adjudicated to have committed an offense enumerated in
subdivision (b) of Welfare and Institutions Code ("WIC") section
707. There are about 65 DJF wards committed to DJF after the
enactment of SB 81 in 2007 for a sex crime not described in WIC
section 707(b). This bill would allow for these wards to
continue to be housed in DJF until they reach their maximum age
of jurisdiction (21 years), and would clarify statute to more
clearly state that wards who have been adjudicated to have
committed a registerable sex crime are eligible for DJF
commitment.
Specifically, this bill would do the following:
Enact clear statutory language authorizing the juvenile
court to commit a delinquent ward to DJF if the ward has
committed a sex offense, as described in subdivision (c) of
Section 290.008 of the Penal Code;
Enact clear statutory language describing wards
ineligible for DJF to not include those adjudicated to have
committed a sex offense for which registration would be
required, as specified;
Authorize DJF enter into contracts with a county to
(More)
AB 324 (Buchanan)
PageJ
furnish housing to a ward who was in the custody of DJF on
December 12, 2011, and whose commitment was recalled based
on both of the following:
(1) The ward was committed to DJF for the commission of
a registerable sex crime, as specified; and
(2) The ward has not been adjudged a ward of the court
pursuant to Section 602 for commission of an offense described
in subdivision (b) of Section 707; and
Provide in statute that it "is the intent of the
Legislature in enacting this act to address the California
Supreme Court's ruling in In re C.H. (2011) 53 Cal.4th 94."
4. Background: SB 81 (2007); In re C.H.
In 2007 as part of the budget, the Legislature passed and the
Governor signed into law SB 81. That measure included
provisions to tighten eligibility for commitment to DJF to the
most serious juvenile offenders. Due in part to this
"realignment" of the juvenile offender population, the DJF
population has dropped dramatically. At the time SB 81 was
implemented, there were 2,480 wards at DJF; last month, there
were 993.
Official analyses prepared by the Legislature at that time
unequivocally indicated that the Legislature did not intend this
change to exclude juvenile sex offenders from eligibility for
DJF commitment. Floor analyses for SB 81 in both houses stated
in part:
Juvenile sex offenders are excluded from this change
and will not be impacted by this bill.<2>
Similarly, AB 191 (Committee on Budget)(Ch. 257, Stats. 2007)
was enacted in September of 2007 to modify SB 81 including, as
---------------------------
<2> Bill Analysis of SB 81 as amended July 19, 2007, prepared
by Senate Office of Floor Analysis. See also Assembly Floor
Analysis of SB 81 as amended July 19, 2007.
(More)
AB 324 (Buchanan)
PageK
explained in the floor analysis, to make:
. . . conforming changes to ensure that none of the
juvenile justice reforms contained in the SB 81 affect
juveniles adjudicated of a sex offense as set forth in
paragraph (3) of subdivision (d) of Section 290 of the
Penal Code.<3>
SB 81 amended WIC section 731 to narrow the juvenile court's
authority to commit a juvenile delinquent to DJF to those wards
adjudicated to have committed a serious or violent offense as
described in WIC section 707(b). SB 81, which also recast WIC
section 733 to describe which juvenile offenders are ineligible
for commitment to DJF, included the following, now contained in
subdivision (c) of WIC section 733:
(c) The ward has been or is adjudged a ward of the
court pursuant to Section 602, and the most recent
offense alleged in any petition and admitted or found
to be true by the court is not described in
subdivision (b) of Section 707, unless the offense is
a sex offense set forth in subdivision (c) of Section
290.008 of the Penal Code. This subdivision shall be
effective on and after September 1, 2007. (Emphasis
added.)
The C.H. case, decided on December 12, 2011, involved a youthful
offender who, in February of 2009, was committed to DJF after
unsuccessful programming efforts at the local level "in order to
---------------------------
<3> Bill Analysis of AB 191 as amended September 7, 2007,
prepared by the Senate Office of Floor Analysis. (emphasis
added.) See also Assembly Floor Analysis of AB 191 -
Concurrence in Senate Amendments, September 7, 2007. (Note that
Penal Code section 290(d)(3), cited in the 2007 floor analysis,
subsequently was non-substantively amended to be renumbered as
Penal Code section 290.008, which is the cross-referenced used
in this bill.)
(More)
AB 324 (Buchanan)
PageL
enable him to participate in its sex offender program."<4> The
commitment offense was Penal Code section 288(a), a registerable
sex offense not described in WIC section 707(b).<5>
The Court focused its analysis on WIC section 731 and 733, and
reconciled their apparent inconsistent provisions concerning
juvenile sex offenders by concluding that the language in
section 733 was intended to provide a more "nuanced approach"
authorizing DJF commitment for non-707(b) juvenile sex offenders
who had a previously sustained petition for a 707(b) offense.
Thus, the Court concluded that a delinquent ward was eligible
for DJF commitment if the ward was being committed for a 707(b)
offense, or for a registerable sex crime if the ward had a
---------------------------
<4> C.H., S183737 at 4 (the text of the decision is available
online at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/
opinions/documents/S183737.PDF).
<5> The Court explained: "Section 707(b) does not list the
offense of a lewd and lascivious act on a child within the
meaning of subdivision (a) of Penal Code section 288, the
offense with which C.H. was charged and that he admitted
committing. Section 707(b) lists 30 serious or violent
felonies, including the sex offenses of rape with force,
violence or threat of great bodily harm, sodomy by force,
violence, duress, menace or threat of great bodily harm, oral
copulation by force, violence, duress, menace or threat of great
bodily harm, forcible penetration with a foreign object as
specified in subdivision (a) of Penal Code section 289, and a
forcible lewd or lascivious act on a child described by
subdivision (b) of Penal Code section 288. (� 707, subd.
(b)(4)-(8).)" ( In re C.H. , supra, fn. (3).)
(More)
AB 324 (Buchanan)
PageM
previous 707(b) offense in their history.<6>
Noting that "only when a statute's language is ambiguous or
susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation may we
turn to extrinsic aids to assist in interpretation," the Court
concluded under the circumstances presented by its analysis "it
is inappropriate to resort to the legislative history . . . to
consider whether an otherwise undisclosed legislative intent
might be reflected."<7> Accordingly, the Court apparently did
not consider the legislative intent described in the floor
analyses quoted above.
5. Background: Affected Population; Responses to the Decision;
Potential Consequences
Sixty-five juvenile offenders committed to DJF are affected by
the C.H . case. Most of these juvenile offenders - fifty-one -
were adjudicated to have committed a non-forcible child
molestation crime (Penal Code section 288(a).) All of these
offenders are subject to a maximum DJF jurisdiction of 21 years
of age. Two of these offenders - one age 21 and one age 22 -
are being confined beyond their maximum confinement age pursuant
to the civil commitment provisions contained in WIC section
1800. Out of the 170 juvenile sex offenders at DJF, almost
forty percent of them are subject to the C.H. decision.
In January, the Division of Juvenile Justice sent letters to
presiding judges of the juvenile court advising them of the C.H.
decision, providing them with a roster of youth committed to DJF
from their respective counties who may have been ineligible for
DJF commitment under the decision, and to request that the court
take appropriate action for all cases determined by the court to
be affected by C.H. As of February 3rd, six wards have been
removed from DJF to their county of commitments, and at least
three have been recalled by the court and are awaiting further
disposition.
---------------------------
<6> "We agree that certain juvenile sex offenders are eligible
for DJF, but only so long as they have a prior or current
section 707(b) offense sustained against them." (C.H., supra,
at 10.)
<7> C.H ., supra, at 15-16.
(More)
AB 324 (Buchanan)
PageN
The sponsors of this measure submit that this bill is necessary
and urgent to not interrupt the sex treatment these wards are
receiving at DJF, and because counties do not have adequate
housing or programming capacity to address the needs of these
particular wards. The Chief Probation Officers of California
and the California District Attorneys Association state in part:
If this measure is not approved, the sex offender
treatment being received by these wards would be
disturbed. Additionally, it appears that most
counties would be ill-prepared to house and treat
these wards locally.
6. Future Considerations: The Future of DJF; Sex Offender
Registration Based on Juvenile Adjudications
The Governor's proposed 2012-2013 budget proposes to stop intake
of new juvenile offenders into DJF effective January 1, 2013.
This bill, while consistent with the intent of the reform
enacted by SB 81 in 2007, would appear to be inconsistent with
the Governor's most recent budget proposal. SEIU Local 1000,
which supports this bill, notes in part:
DJF is able to provide highly specialized services to
this population of sex offenders that may not be
available at the county level. However, the Governor
in his 2012-13 Budget proposes to close all intakes of
wards to DJF in 2013 . . . . We would ask what will
happen to these sex offenders once DJF is closed?
Members may wish to ask proponents of this bill and the
administration to address the issue of juvenile sex offender
treatment, including treatment provided at DJF, in the long
term.
Additionally, as members consider this bill they also may wish
to keep in mind the broader policy issues concerning sex
offender registration for juvenile sex offenders - an issue not
directly raised by this bill with respect to the 65 wards
affected by C.H., but nevertheless relevant to the larger policy
(More)
AB 324 (Buchanan)
PageO
discussion concerning these particular youthful offenders.
California law imposes lifetime registration on juvenile
offenders who are committed to DJF after having been adjudicated
to be a ward of the court for the commission of a registerable
sex crime. (Penal Code � 290.008.) Registration for juvenile
sex offenders found to be wards of the juvenile court -
technically a civil proceeding in which a minor has no right to
a jury trial - is predicated solely on their commitment to DJF;
juvenile sex offenders who are paroled or discharged from DJF
are subject to the registration laws, and those who remain local
are not.
The requirements of sex offender registration in California have
evolved and expanded significantly over the last 20 years,
including more frequent re-registration,<8> significantly
narrowed options for relief from the obligation to register,<9>
and residency restrictions under Jessica's Law.<10> The
expanded application of sex offender registration laws is
particularly significant in the area of juvenile law: what now
is a lifetime duty to register as a sex offender for offenses
adjudicated by the juvenile court once terminated - prior to
---------------------------
<8> For example, annual registration was not required until the
passage of AB 3513 (Umberg)(Ch. 865, Stats. 1994); before then,
registrants had to re-register upon a change of residence. In
subsequent years even more frequent re-registration has been
imposed, such as for transient sex offenders (See SB 882
(Schiff)(Ch. 820, Stats. 1997); AB 2527 (Frommer)(Ch. 429,
Stats. 2004 �now addressed in Penal Code � 290.012])) .
<9> See AB 3456 (Harvey)(Ch. 863, Stats. of 1994); AB 1901
(Alby)(Ch. 129, Stats. 1996).
<10> Penal Code � 3003.5(b). (Proposition 83, November 2006
General Election.) A number of issues relating to the residency
restrictions are before the California Supreme Court in People
v. Mosley (S187965). In September of 2010, the Fourth
Appellate District held that the residency restriction is
punitive and therefore registration and the residency
restriction cannot be imposed without a jury trial making the
supporting findings beyond a reasonable doubt. That decision
was superseded by a grant of review by the California Supreme
Court in January of last year, where the case now is pending.
(More)
AB 324 (Buchanan)
PageP
1995 - when a person reached the age of 25 years.<11> In light
of what sex offender registration means today, and as the
utility and use of DJF in the larger context of California's
juvenile justice system continues to evolve -- especially if the
Governor's proposal to close DJF moves forward -- members may
(More)
---------------------------
<11> AB 3456 (Harvey)(Ch. 863, Stats. of 1994.) The Senate
committee analysis of this bill stated in part: "This bill would
continue a juvenile offender's duty to register as a sex
offender beyond the age 25. () Juvenile delinquents generally
are handled by a separate, quasi-criminal court system designed
to promote treatment and rehabilitation. The philosophy and
rationale for treating juvenile offenders differently than adult
offenders is that, because youthful offenders are intercepted at
an early age, there still is some hope they can be
rehabilitated. () WOULD CONTINUING SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION
BEYOND THE AGE OF 25 FOR PEOPLE WHO WERE ADJUDICATED AS MINORS
-- BUT NOT REMANDED TO ADULT COURT -- TO HAVE COMMITTED A
REGISTERABLE OFFENSE BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT JUVENILE
JUSTICE SYSTEM? () WHAT PUBLIC INTEREST WOULD BE SERVED BY
CONTINUING REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS FOR OFFENSES ADJUDICATED IN
JUVENILE COURT? () WOULD THIS PUBLIC INTEREST OUTWEIGH THE
POTENTIAL HARM TO EFFORTS AT REHABILITATION?" (Senate Judiciary
Committee Analysis of AB 3456, as amended June 29, 1994
(capitalization in original).
wish to consider a more comprehensive examination of the
juvenile sex offender registration laws. Towards this end, the
California Sex Offender Management Board, working closely with
juvenile justice experts, may be an appropriate body to address
this issue and develop recommendations for future reforms.<12>
***************
---------------------------
<12> Although under current law the Sex Offender Management
Board addresses policy issues concerning adult sex offenders
(Penal Code � 9002), expanding the scope of the Board's mission
to include juvenile sex offenders may be a worthwhile revision
to maximize the value of the Board in contributing to the
development and implementation of effective sex offender
management policies in California.