Inmates wait in the Roger Bauman intake facility for assessment before integrating into the Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center in Elk Grove in March 2012. rbyer@sacbee.com

As a retired superior court judge and former senior deputy district attorney, we know what it means to confront painful crimes. We believe laws should ensure justice is done and public safety is prioritized.

But we also know there are times when laws need to change, as is the case with the current California law that allows 14- and 15-year-olds who commit serious crimes to be sentenced as adults. Senate Bill 1391 would stop sending young teens to adult criminal court, a system that is not designed for them.

In 1994, fueled by racially-tinged theories about teen “superpredators” and the popular belief that children’s brains were fully developed by age 12, California passed a law allowing 14- and 15-year-olds to be sentenced as adults. Since, cognitive science has shown that those ideas were wrong. Young teens are more prone to impulsive behavior and poor decisions than older teens.

Click to resize

Moreover, juvenile violent crime rates have been declining since 1995, with a 75 percent decrease in felony arrests by 2016 — which is not attributable to prosecuting children in adult court, research has shown. In fact, the practice has weakened, not enhanced, public safety. Teens prosecuted as adults are more likely to be repeat offenders than those treated in the juvenile justice system. The state’s Division of Juvenile Justice has been lauded as a national model grounded in evidence-based programs.

Opinion

There also is strong evidence that existing law enables racial and ethnic disparities at the expense of California’s youngest teens. Black youths are 11 times more likely and Latino youths are five times more likely to face prosecution as adults for the same crimes as white youths.

Where a crime is committed matters, too. Over the past decade, children in Sacramento County have been sent to adult court at a rate nearly twice the state average. In Yolo County, the rate is four times the state average.

Despite all of this evidence, many district attorneys oppose SB 1391, claiming it takes away judicial discretion and suggesting dangerous people will be released from the juvenile system. They fail to mention that existing California laws allow a judge to indefinitely keep a person in Division of Juvenile Justice custody.

SB 1391 would mean that judges could make a decision about a case when they have the most information. Instead of asking judges to decide at the front end who a 14- or 15-year-old will be in 10 or 25 years, they would be able to examine a teenager’s behavior and evaluation over a 10-year period, and then determine whether he or she was rehabilitated or needs to remain incarcerated.

The opposition to this reform has, perhaps not surprisingly, emphasized only the most difficult cases. The failure to note existing safeguards is disturbing. But it is unconscionable that opponents ignore evidence showing that current law increases the likelihood of future victims, and decreases racial and geographic equity across the state.

We urge Gov. Jerry Brown to sign SB 1391 and reverse the errors made in the 1990s. It will assure that our youngest teens are appropriately sentenced and our communities are kept safe.

Jan Levine is a retired Superior Court judge in Los Angeles and can be contacted at jglhome@aol.com. Brian Gurwitz is a former senior deputy district attorney in Orange County and can be contacted at brian@gurwitzlaw.com.

STAY IN THE DEBATE

The Sacramento Bee editorial board tackles the day’s biggest issues seven days a week, 365 days a year to keep you informed about California policy and politics.
We're a one-stop shop for timely, relevant viewpoints from elected officials and advocates on water, healthcare and housing and more.
Want to stay in the conversation? Support this forum for voices from across the state with a digital subscription to The Sacramento Bee.