January 28, 2000
JAMES R. MILLIKEN
Presiding Judge, Juvenile Division
Proposition 21 would change existing law permitting District Attorneys in this State to file criminal charges against minors directly in adult court for a whole class of felonies. This law removes the check and balance provided by judicial review of this decision.
Current law requires prosecutors to file such cases initially in Juvenile Court and seek Juvenile Court permission for minors to be tried as adults. Current law permits a Juvenile court Judge to exercise discretion to have the crime dealt with in Juvenile Court as opposed to adult court. Current law places significant limits on the Juvenile Court's discretion to retain minors' cases in Juvenile Court by imposing a presumption that juveniles over the age of 14 should be tried as adults if charged with serious offenses. This presumption becomes virtually conclusive as offenses become more serious. Therefore, existing law essentially requires that juveniles who commit very serious offenses when they are over 14 years of age to be tried as adults. Juveniles who commit less serious offenses and who are amenable to the rehabilitation of the Juvenile Court may be tried in Juvenile Court at the discretion of the Juvenile Court Judge. This existing law was worked very well.
Increases in violence among juveniles are cited by the proponents of Proposition 21 as the reason for permitting or requiring direct filing in adult court on juvenile cases by prosecutors. In fact, serious and violent juvenile crime is declining nationally and has declined by approximately 10% in the last year. Serious and violent juvenile crime is down by an even greater percentage in San Diego County.
In San Diego, the District Attorney sought to try 117 young people as adults in 1996, 37 of these were actually transferred to adult court.
That number dropped to 73 in 1997, with 23 actually sent to adult court. The numbers were 41 petitions with 11 sent in 1998. We have had 70 petitions to try young people as adults in 1999, 33 have been adjudicated "unfit for Juvenile Court" and sent to be tried as adults. In 1997, the District Attorney filed charges on 4,791 juvenile felonies in San Diego County. In 1998, felony filings decreased to 4,313. In 1999, there were 2,734. If increased in violent crime by juveniles are the reason for enacting the direct filing provisions of Proposition 21, that reason is non-existent. Although arrest rates for juveniles have increased, the number of young people actually charged with serious violent crime has dropped significantly and dramatically.
Prosecutors are by definition advocates. A Judge's role, on the other hand, is to weigh evidence from opposing sides and reach a decision based on the facts and the applicable law. California Juvenile Court Judges have a statutory duty to give minors "the care, treatment and guidance which is consistent with their best interest, which holds them accountable for their behavior, and which is appropriate for their circumstance." (Welfare & Institutions Code section 202). The existing law, which requires prosecutors to obtain the Juvenile Court's approval before trying minors as adults, is working. Likewise, the system of juvenile supervision, which requires accountability and drug and alcohol treatment for youthful offenders, is working and should not be tampered with.
As a Judge, I have the statutory obligation to enforce Proposition 21 if it is enacted by the voters. However, I believe that if Proposition 21 is enacted it will seriously hamper the fair administration of justice for juveniles in this State. I urge a "NO" vote on Proposition 21 because its direct filing provisions are unnecessary and unwise.
Return to Frontpage