California Enacts Criminal Justice “Reform” Disallowing Prosecuting 15-Year-Olds (and Younger) as Adults
Enter any District Attorney’s office in California these days and you’ll encounter people rolling their eyes at the latest attacks on public safety from the Legislature or Governor. One day they’re weakening the felony murder rule and gutting murder liability under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, a staple of gang murder prosecutions. The latest: 14- and 15-year-olds cannot be tried as adults — for any crime including murder.
I haven’t counted how many people I have in California state prisons serving life for murder. 40? 50? Something like that, I’d guess. And off the top of my head, I can think of only three whom I convicted for crimes they committed when they were 15 years old (one defendant) or 14 years old (two defendants). They were all stone cold killers, but one of the 14-year-olds was one of the worst monsters I have ever prosecuted. He and his 15-year-old co-defendant committed multiple shootings in a weeks-long crime spree that terrorized the city of Long Beach about nine years ago, and it’s his good luck that only one of his victims died.
Now, people like that who commit similar murders today will be held in a juvenile justice facility into their early twenties, at the outer limit. And then they will be released back into society. Gang members who are having a hard time finding 13-year-olds to hand a gun to? They will now have a new crop of 14- and 15-year-olds who can be the triggermen in their retaliation shootings, without fear of a life sentence.
This “reform,” in other words, is not all rainbows and lollipops.
I understand the impulse towards leniency. My son is 15 years old, and it’s hard to think of someone his age (or a year younger!) committing such awful crimes. Until you’ve witnessed the evidence yourself — until you’ve talked to the mothers of the victims who will never see their sons again — it’s hard for that concept to truly sink in.
But in all the applause you see about this and other criminal justice “reforms” these days, make no mistake: this will lead to more murders and more dead victims. Not might. Will.
It’s just a question of how many.
[As always, I speak on behalf of myself and not my office.]
[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]
As my once ultra-liberal, bleeding heart, now conservative (and a Trump voter) friend said about her change of heart:
“Every liberal should serve jury duty on a murder trial”.
harkin (a4b010) — 10/1/2018 @ 8:32 pmAs was said in “The Wire”, by 14 or 15 they are DEEP in “the game.”
Kevin M (d6cbf1) — 10/1/2018 @ 8:39 pmSo, does this mean that all those little children so wrongly imprisoned by our racist system will be released soon? Will the governor commute all those sentences and take the blame if it goes wrong?
Kevin M (d6cbf1) — 10/1/2018 @ 8:40 pmI don’t know how you do it, Patterico.
mg (9e54f8) — 10/1/2018 @ 8:43 pmJust thankful you do.
diane moo goo gai pan feinstein says young people what do crimes all up in it should pay for it the rest of their life
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/1/2018 @ 8:47 pmIf not 15, then where do you draw the line then Patterico?
I don’t think an adult is fully formed at 15 – not enough to know the full permanence and consequences of their actions and impulse control. Look at the dumb stuff 15 and 16 year-olds do.
Tillman (61f3c8) — 10/1/2018 @ 8:55 pmWho are the people the reformers see as benefiting from this reform? How common are they, compared to those who are already behind this kind of approach?
Stephen J. (c5f80e) — 10/1/2018 @ 9:00 pmFor “behind” above read “beyond”. Damn autocomplete.
Stephen J. (c5f80e) — 10/1/2018 @ 9:01 pmDoes it feel that you are under constant personal and professional siege by the California Legislature and Jerry Brown, Patterico? I can only begin to imagine your frustration.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/1/2018 @ 9:17 pmIt must be insane, it’s like real life ‘wild in the streets’
Narciso (54490f) — 10/1/2018 @ 9:18 pm@ Tillman: I think the calendar is a remarkably blunt and ineffective way to gauge anyone’s emotional maturity. I certainly was fully formed enough to “know the full permanence and consequences of [my] actions and [to exercise] impulse control” by the time I was eight. I know others for whom that cannot be said, even though they’ve qualified for Medicare.
The legal lines of majority and minority are presumptions, conclusive ones in many contexts, but not conclusive in others. I firmly agree that when there is evidence sufficient to establish an older juvenile’s fitness to be treated as an adult — which is indeed an individualized assessment that, as I understand it, the juvenile’s counsel can challenge and present evidence to rebut — then such senior juveniles ought to be tried as adults. And I likewise agree that even an adult ought be spared trial when he lacks competency to understand the nature of his crime and to assist meaningfully in his defense, notwithstanding his adulthood.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/1/2018 @ 9:27 pmI agree that age is “a remarkably blunt and ineffective way to gauge anyone’s” maturity. I also think of young teenagers and Beavis and Butt-Head comes to mind. But thanks for the thoughtful response Beldar.
Tillman (61f3c8) — 10/1/2018 @ 9:39 pmNot this is interesting:
This thinking reminds me of the movement in public schools to reduce the disparity between white suspensions versus black suspensions of students. In such efforts, the threshold for offense is raised so that a student can commit more infractions before suspension rather than holding the current line of standards, or even tightening up standards of behavior. Give them more chances, positive-based discipline rather than punative, or something. Instead of suspensions, students might participate in any number of multi-tiered processes to help them better address their behaviors, etc. This all with a particular focus on underrepresented groups. It’s all about Equity.
Dana (023079) — 10/1/2018 @ 9:42 pmBut the “stark racial and geographic disparity in how young men and women are treated who have committed similar crimes”
That is exactly what you want to say during voir dire (when the judge is questioning you) if you ever want to be excused from jury duty in a criminal case.
nk (dbc370) — 10/1/2018 @ 9:50 pmIt’s almost a relief to be (almost, having held onto one case) out of the business of prosecuting gang murders, and instead in the business of defending death verdicts on habeas. Helps me to think less about the people I convicted who never should have gotten parole — whose victims’ families I told would never get parole under then existing law — who will now be paroled. Or thinking about the people I was prosecuting when I turned over my caseload to another prosecutor — people whom I would have convicted absent these laws — who will now walk out the door due to these laws. And on and on and on.
I think people do a good job of resisting an atmosphere of demoralization and “what are we even doing here?” The attitude is more like: “Have you heard what Jerry Brown signed this time?” But we keep trying to keep the streets safe. How can we do otherwise?
Patterico (115b1f) — 10/1/2018 @ 9:58 pmHope you write a book or two, Patterico.
mg (9e54f8) — 10/1/2018 @ 10:29 pmThe bill might be called “The Welcome MS-13” bill.
Thanks to the cops and DAs who manage to carry on despite this insanity.
Patricia (3363ec) — 10/1/2018 @ 10:37 pmYou’re welcome, Tillman, and thank you as well for the very civil exchange.
You’re right about the lack of alternatives, Patterico. I’m tempted to add “given that you choose to live there!” But that would be snarky, and would second-guess judgments that aren’t mine, or anyone but you & your family’s, to make. And I’m quite certain you’d be working similarly hard to keep the streets safe if you were a prosecutor anywhere else than CA, and that both the crazies and non-crazies there are indeed the better for it, whether they recognize it or not, and whether they impede you in your work or not. So: Carry on, sir; please carry on. (Ditto for Mrs. Patterico and her work.)
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/1/2018 @ 10:58 pmDoes the fatherless home have any role in this?
mg (9e54f8) — 10/2/2018 @ 12:28 amAnd you don’t even mention illegal immigrants lying about their age so that 18 year olds are considered 14.
Ingot9455 (afdf95) — 10/2/2018 @ 6:51 am#19
steveg (a9dcab) — 10/2/2018 @ 8:59 amIt can be worse if dad is around periodically. (or if the gang is “Dad”) Dad gets out of prison, the gang throws a big party, there’s always gangsters around drinking etc, guns on the table and talk is about crime. People who aren’t in the gang that get hurt or die are worthless anyway. The kids that already have issues grow up at 13 with brains that are numb and get monikers that further create an identity. By that time it can be hard to get the genie back into the bottle. Ever
@6. The ‘calendar’ seems a reasonable guidepost for managing such matters in our society deemed a ‘privilege’ and/or if abused, have consequences to others such as issuing driving licenses, pilot licenses, purchasing liquor and other mind-altering substances, qualifying for military service and so forth. [It was absurd to have 18 year olds acceptable for military service yet unable to consume spirits until 21.] Even voting rights have a minimum age requirement, as does the office of the presidency. [Common sense expects a 35 year old to be a fully formed adult in thought and action, however as we’ve recently discovered, a man-child can slip through.] Murder, however, should really be a tried-as-an-adult-crime across the board, and left to the courts, judge and jury to manage guilt, innocence and penalty.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/2/2018 @ 11:55 amThe cynic in me thinks, to them, this a feature not a bug.
Gotta break some eggs to disarm the population doncha know…
lee (eda32e) — 10/2/2018 @ 1:55 pmI’m amused by folks calling these 14yo gangsters “children.” By that age they are already hardened criminals and have probably been gangbanging for years. By 14, they are hardened criminals. I know a few who went straight later in life (not the way to bet). Their stories are harrowing.
Kevin M (d6cbf1) — 10/2/2018 @ 1:57 pmPatterico,
How come we never hear the DA pushing back on this, or at least the professional society? Maybe they are and the press ignores it.
This isn’t the first chip in this block. Between the gutting of “3 strikes”, prison reform, “non-violent” crime sentence reduction, sanctuary policies and now this, I would have expected a bunch of hopping mad prosecutors. Even in a one-party state, there should be some response to this.
One of the last things I noticed when I left was that residential package theft was no longer being prosecuted, even when there were clear HD images of the thief. Theories were “no room in the jail” and “cost cutting due to pensions.” All I know was that I’d seen enough.
Glad someone is still fighting. I no longer could.
Kevin M (d6cbf1) — 10/2/2018 @ 2:07 pmRe: children aged 15 not being fully able to appreciate the consequences of their actions. True, true. However, they should still be tried “as adults,” or some functional equivalent, in order to open up the range of potential sentences beyond Juvenile remedies. Now that juveniles, even those tried as adults, can’t be sentenced to life in prison, the fear of automatically dooming an child-murderer is off the table. In turn, we still need to have the option of long-term incarceration and control for some of these individuals. I spent the last 14 years as a prosecutor defending convictions on collateral appeal, and one thing to understand about the Left is that they NEVER STOP. I’m personally glad that a sentence of life in prison without possibility of parole is now prohibited if the offender was a juvenile, but of course that’s not going to be the last push by activists. As soon as life in prison was off the table, we instantly started seeing appeals from lifers who were over 18 when they killed someone. Now the claim is that, because the human brain is still immature up until age 25, those who were under 25 years old should also now be relieved of their life sentence.
RigelDog (5d99f9) — 10/2/2018 @ 5:01 pmThough this pales in mortal consequence, I didnt know this existed as well:
http://howardahmansonjr.com/2018/09/proposition-47-and-the-950-get-out-of-jail-free-card/
Now I understand the Sean Penn character’s frustration in Colors about not having 1st and 2nd offenses on perps.
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 10/4/2018 @ 7:39 am