The California Supreme Court on February 17, 2021, upheld a California law that prohibits a child 15 from being tried as an adult. The ruling meant that a 15-year-old youth could only be dealt with in juvenile court. Under California law, the youth would be set free at age 25 or younger. It is now time that the rest of the country adopts a similar reform.
The minor only referred to as O.G. in the decision, was accused of: fatally shooting a 22-year-old man, fatally stabbing a 26-year-old man, committing a robbery with a gun, and being a gang member.
One wonders why such a delinquent would not be tried as an adult and possibly sentenced to 25 years to life or even face the death penalty. The answer is simple. The United States Supreme Court and many other state courts, with California leading the way, have recognized that the brain of a 15-year-old is different from the brain of a 30-year-old. Undisputed scientific evidence has shown that an adolescent’s brain is neurologically structured and wired differently from that of an adult age 25 and older. Developmentally the 15-year-old brain perceives and reacts to threats aggressively, significantly lacks impulse control, long-term planning, and reasoning abilities. All of which makes a youth subject to peer pressure and, most importantly, have the inability to foresee the consequences of their acts that may severely affect the lives of their victims, themselves, their families, and society. Such a lack of mental competency lessens youths’ ability to act responsibly. In the past, society treated such acts by juveniles as though they were adults, especially when they committed serious felony crimes.
In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged in Roper v. Simmons the growing body of scientific evidence that a youth under 18 lacked sufficient mental development and reasoning ability, similar to a person who was mentally retarded, and thereby the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Equal Protection Clause, prohibited execution of youth under 18. Since Roper neurological and sociological studies, and just plain common sense, has led the courts to hold that extreme adult criminal sentences for minors violate the Eight Amendment against cruel and unusual punishment. Thus, in Miller v. Alabama, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down mandatory life sentences without parole for youth under the age of 18. In Graham v. Florida the Court found that Juveniles are more capable of change than adults and are good subjects for rehabilitation. Called the Juvenile Reformation Movement, a variety of rehabilitation methods has resulted in a drastic decline in recidivism rates by juveniles and the number of youths incarcerated in California.
As an ex-prosecutor and a criminal defense attorney who has specialized in juvenile law and has written several books and legal articles on the horrors of police tactics when dealing with minors, the latest being Shes So Cold, The Stephanie Crowe Murder Case, A Defense Attorneys Inside Story, my Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review article, Spring 2020, My Dartmouth Law Journal article, Spring 2021, and my fictional thriller series A.J. Hawke, Attorney at Law, I believe it is time for society in general, and specifically for the police, prosecutors and judges, to realize what Dr. Jessica Stephens so aptly said:
There is no such thing as a Bad Kid, just angry, hurt, tired, scared, confused, impulsive ones expressing their feelings and needs the only way they know how.
In my numerous writings, I propose a Bill of Rights and new Miranda warnings for children to protect children better and prevent them from making false confessions.
For those who would like to read a brief history on juvenile law and my proposed changes when dealing with juveniles, please see my other law review articles: The Evolution of Juvenile Justice, Loyola of L.A. Law Review, Vol. 53, Number 3, Spring 2020; and my Dartmouth Law Journal article, Children and the Law, Volume XIX, Number 1, Spring 2021.