NCJ Number
60502
Journal
American Journal of Criminal Law Volume: 7 Issue: 2 Dated: (JULY 1979) Pages: 171-191
Date Published
1979
Length
21 pages
Annotation
FOLLOWING AN OVERVIEW OF THE HISTORY AND PURPOSE OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE CONCEPT IN THE UNITED STATES, SEVERAL AMENDMENTS MADE TO THE CALIFORNIA JUVENILE COURT ACT ARE EXAMINED TOGETHER WITH THE COURTS' REACTIONS.
Abstract
SEVERAL MAJOR CHANGES IN THE CALIFORNIA JUVENILE COURT ACT HAVE OCCURRED SINCE 1961. IN 1971 THE LEGISLATURE LOWERED THE MAXIMUM AGE FOR TREATMENT AS A JUVENILE FROM 21 TO 18, AND IN 1975 COURTS WERE INSTRUCTED TO CONSIDER THE BEST INTEREST OF SOCIETY AS WELL AS THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE JUVENILE. IN 1977 THIS SUBSECTION WAS FURTHER AMENDED TO SAY THAT THE COURT SHOULD 'PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM CRIMINAL CONDUCT BY MINORS; TO IMPOSE ON THE MINOR A SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS OWN ACTS;' AND TO REMOVE THE MINOR FROM PARENTAL CUSTODY 'ONLY WHEN NECESSARY FOR HIS WELFARE OR FOR THE SAFETY AND PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC.' THE CURRENT TRANSFER SECTION IS THE RESULT OF A SERIES OF CHANGES, SOME INCREASING AND SOME DECREASING THE JUVENILE COURT'S DISCRETION TO TRANSFER TO AN ADULT COURT. THE 1975 AMENDMENT CODIFIED CRITERIA WHICH THE JUVENILE COURTS HAD BEEN USING FOR TRANSFER INCLUDING THE DEGREE OF CRIMINAL SOPHISTICATION EXHIBITED BY THE JUVENILE, OPPORTUNITY FOR REHABILITATION BEFORE JUVENILE COURT JURISDICTION EXPIRES, PREVIOUS DELINQUENT HISTORY, RESULTS OF PREVIOUS REHABILITATION ATTEMPTS, AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND GRAVITY OF THE OFFENSE. APPELLATE COURTS HAVE REFUSED TO UPHOLD TRANSFERS TO ADULT COURT BASED ON GRAVITY OF THE OFFENSE ALONE. THEREFORE, TWO OR MORE CRITERIA ARE GENERALLY CITED. IN PRACTICE, THE COURTS HAVE EXPERIENCED CONSIDERABLE TENSION IN BALANCING THE NEEDS OF SOCIETY AGAINST THE REHABILITATION OF THE JUVENILE, WITH REHABILITATION USUALLY FAVORED. NOTES AND REFERENCES ARE INCLUDED. (GLR)