NCJ Number
163124
Journal
San Diego Justice Journal Volume: 3 Issue: 2 Dated: (Summer 1995) Pages: 447-460
Date Published
1995
Length
14 pages
Annotation
Judicial precedent overwhelmingly holds that juvenile adjudications are not criminal convictions and that minors are entitled to the same constitutional rights afforded adults, including the right to trial by jury, and provisions of California's Three Strikes Law are discussed in this context.
Abstract
Proponents and critics agree that implementation of the Three Strikes Law will have a significant impact on civil and criminal court systems. Because of the severe consequences that now accompany many prior felony convictions, there is virtually no incentive for criminal defendants charged with a violent or serious felony to accept a plea bargain for a charge that falls under the purview of Three Strikes. In the case of juvenile adjudication, an important consideration in the Three Strikes context is the distinct difference between adult and juvenile criminal processes. Procedural safeguards, such as the right to trial by jury, are absent in juvenile proceedings and certain provisions of California's Three Strikes Law pertaining to juveniles may be unconstitutional. The California Supreme Court appears willing to allow the expansion of sentence enhancement provisions into the area of juvenile law as long as they are explicitly provided for in the Welfare and Institutions Code. More judicial interpretation, however, is needed to clarify the impact of the Three Strikes Law on the juvenile justice system and its subsequent effect on due process and fundamental fairness. Unless jury trials are extended to juveniles, the practice of using juvenile adjudications as sentence enhancements may violate due process rights. 74 footnotes