|
 |
|
ALSO IN BAY NEWS:
[ Gray Davis in Chinatown | Youth Against Prop. 21 | Political Potstickers ] API Youth Mobilize Against State Ballot Initiative When Linh Truong first heard of the “Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Act” -- which if passed will effectively put more teenage criminal offenders into adult prisons -- her first reaction was, “I hated it.” “It’s hard enough to put [teenagers] in jail. Now they want to put us in adult jails,” the teen said. The March 7 ballot initiative, Proposition 21, would allow prosecutors, rather than judges, to decide whether juveniles as young as 14 should be charged as adults for a variety of serious or violent crimes -- from murder charges to sex offenses. In adult court, they would be subject to regular criminal sentences of up to life in prison; the maximum age for juvenile court sentences is 25. Truong, an Oakland High School sophomore, first learned of the initiative through her friends and immediately decided to do something about it, even though she can’t vote. The 15-year-old, armed with a little more than just her voice and some flyers, began to spread the message about how damaging it would be for youths -- especially minorities -- if the proposition passes. “I tell them that they’re going to put 14-year-olds into adult prisons and they [authorities] could arrest us for walking down the street wearing the same color.” Truong is referring to a provision in the initiative that would increase the number of crimes punishable as gang-related, while increasing the severity of sentences for such offenses. Moreover, Proposition 21 would enable police to wiretap the homes of any suspected gang -- a term loosely defined in the provision as any group of three or more. Truong believes the provision will disproportionately affect minority youths because they will more likely to be labeled as a gangster. “If there is a group of white kids dressed in the same color and there’s a group of colored kids dressed in the same color, the colored group will get approached first. “It means trouble for us,” she added. All this week, Proposition 21 opponents have been organizing what is called “Week of Rage” Hundreds of Bay Area youths and organizers have staged events -- from concerts and rallies to sit-ins -- to demonstrate their staunch opposition to the initiative they call the “Juvenile Injustice Initiative.” Like the other high school students who participated, Truong is part of that youth movement that seeks to increase awareness by speaking up. Currently, state laws allow minors to be sent to adult prison at age16, but require them to be housed separately from adults, a requisite the Corrections Department admits has not been fully enforced for the 100 juveniles now in adult prison. Proposition 21 would not change those laws but would require 16-year-olds convicted in adult court to be sent directly to prison. Fourteen-year-olds sentenced as adults would start in the California Youth Authority but could be transferred to prison at 16. Last Thursday two nonprofit research and advocacy groups, Commonweal and the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, released a study predicting that 8,800 more juveniles would be prosecuted as adults each year and 1,900 could be sent to prison, some for nonviolent property and drug crimes. The predictions are based on increases in other states where prosecutors gained authority to charge juveniles as adults, the council’s president Barry Krisberg said. “We were trying to come up with a reasonable estimate,” he said. “Nobody knows for sure. Are we willing to wager $2 billion on how this is going to come out?” The study estimated $2 billion a year in increased state and local government costs for new prisons, pretrial detention facilities and other provisions, such as mandatory police registration of gang members. Supporters of the proposition have acknowledged some cost increases but say opponents’ figures are exaggerated and ignore savings from the measure. The Yes-on-21 campaign disputed the study and said the increase in prison commitments would be minimal. In particular, one issue proponents and opponents have debated is whether the measure would send substantially more youths to prison, where, compared to juvenile detention centers, fewer education and work programs are available and the danger of rape is higher. Yes-on-21 spokesman Mitch Zak said Friday that prosecutors who support the measure expect little or no increase in adult court prosecutions and prison sentences. He noted that the decision on adult prosecutions would be left, in most cases, to the same prosecutors who now ask judges to approve those prosecutions. “The people who are going to be filed on directly (in adult court) are the worst of the worst, rapes, murders, gang-related offenses,” Zak said.
WHAT IT DOES: Requires youths 14 and older to be tried in adult court for murder and sexual assaults; allows prosecutors, rather than judges, to decide whether youths will be tried in adult court for other serious crimes; eliminates informal probation for juveniles charged with felonies; establishes a new probation system for juveniles charged with nonviolent crimes; increases punishment and broadens prosecutions for gang-related crimes; requires pretrial detention for youths charged with serious crimes; authorizes the death penalty for gang-related murders by adults; reduces confidentiality of juvenile proceedings and records. WHAT SUPPORTERS SAY: The juvenile court system is not suitable for violent criminals. Moving them to adult court at the prosecutor’s discretion will eliminate expensive hearings and allow juvenile courts to focus on youths who can be rehabilitated. WHAT OPPONENTS SAY: A decade-long decline in juvenile crime rates shows the current system is working. Adult court trials should be reviewed by neutral judges, not prosecutors with an interest in punishment. The measure would cost billions for new prisons and detention facilities, with no evidence that it would reduce crime. WHO’S FOR IT: Statewide organizations of district attorneys, police chiefs and sheriffs; crime victims’ organizations; former Gov. Pete Wilson; Gov. Gray Davis. WHO’S AGAINST IT: Statewide organizations of county governments and probation officers; state AFL-CIO; League of Women Voters; civil rights and youth advocacy organizations; L.A. Police Chief Bernard Parks, San Francisco District Attorney Terence Hallinan. Attorney General Bill Lockyer’s office says he is taking no formal position on a ballot measure he may have to defend in court. But Lockyer told an Oakland Tribune reporter he thought Proposition 21 was unbalanced and wouldn’t vote for it.
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||