Juvenile System in California

Juvenile System in California

Minors form all the states in the US can be arrested for a misdemeanor, a felony, or status offenses. California is among the states in the US, which has some of the highest statistics about juvenile felony arrest. According to the 2012 report from the Davison of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), 30 percent juveniles were arrested for a felony, 56 percent misdemeanors, while the status offenses such as truancy, or curfew violations accounted for 13 percent. The statistics further breaks down the composition of the juvenile offenders based on race, and ethnicity. Among 36,289 felony arrests reported in 2012 among the juveniles, 23 percent were African Americans, while 20 percent were whites, while 52 were Latinos. Among the 67,876 reported for a misdemeanor, African Americans constituted 15 percent, 54 percent Latinos, and 24 percent Americans. Pursuant to section 602 of the California Welfare & institutions code, the juvenile court has jurisdiction over the offenses allegedly committed by minors under the age of 18 years at the time. However, if someone commits an offense at the age of 17, and is not tried or discovered until the age of 20, the minor can still be tried in the juvenile court. To develop a better understanding of the juvenile system in California, the paper will seek to answer the question: How does California’s juvenile system work?

The juvenile justice process

The stated purpose of the juvenile justice system in California is to primarily focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment as in the cases of the adult criminal justice system (Barnert et al, 2017). In California, after a juvenile offender is arrested, it is within the discretion of a law enforcement officer to either release the juvenile to the parents, or take the offender to the juvenile hall (Cicourel, 2017). The agency responsible for the hall, which in this case is the county probation department, also has the discretion to either accept or secure the offender or not. If the offender is not secured as per the provisions of the probation department, the disposition of the juvenile is left on the control of the police (Barnert et al, 2017). Most of the state juvenile halls in California are overcrowded because most juveniles are held for violent offenses. The system in California thus accepts only the most violent arrestees in a bid to offload the juvenile halls.

The probation department or the district attorney may choose to file a petition with the juvenile court once a juvenile is placed in the halls. The filing of the petition, in this case, follows a similar procedure to that followed when filing a petition in the adult courts (Barnert et al, 2017). On the other hand, the district attorney may decide to request the juvenile to be remanded to adult court if he or she is unfit for the adjudication process of the minors (Jonson-Reid et al, 2018). This request is however purely based on the nature of the offense. In some cases, the offender can be placed on probation in the community if the juvenile has been adjudicated, and the petition sustained in the juvenile court. Nevertheless, such placements are not only limited to the community probation but also extends to the incarcerated juvenile camps, care groups, and homes or sent to the Youth Authority as state wards. In some cases, the juvenile can be tried and convicted in an adult court. In such a scenario, the offender can be sentenced to the correctional departments, but placed in the Youth Authority to the age of 24 years (Jonson-Reid et al, 2018).

The roles of the County Probation Departments

The county probation departments supervise close to 97 percent of all the juvenile offenders. The Youth Authority took care of the remaining three percent and became a state responsibility (Washburn, 2018). On the contrary, only 18 percent of the adult offenders are convicted and sent to the state prisons, and become a state responsibility (Barnert et al, 2017). The county probation departments work in closeness with the judges. In this manner, they make recommendations to the judges on the placements as well as the sentencing of the juvenile offenders. The departments also supervise the offenders in the community, and provide rehabilitation services to the probationers (Cicourel, 2017). Additionally, it is the mandate of the county probation departments to offer training services to the probationers, and operate the county camps and the juvenile halls.

The picture of the overall system

The juvenile system in California is more of a correctional scheme for young offenders. In this regard, the system has focused more on correcting the behaviors among the juveniles (Cicourel, 2017). The correction of the behaviors, in this case, implies the minors must attend school, counseling programs. To this end, the system has provided the frameworks and the foundations for the juveniles to receive education, counseling, and treatment programs (Jonson-Reid et al, 2018). The system is a local responsibility. The DJJ offers these services to the youths up to the age of 25 years for the juveniles with most serious criminal records, and intense treatment needs.

The DJJ represents less than two percent of the youths arrested in California each year because most juvenile offenders are committed to county facilities close to their families and communities. The DJJ uses an Integrated Behavior Treatment Model designed to reduce institutional violence and the possibilities of future criminal behaviors (Barnert et al, 2017). The model teaches anti-criminal attitudes, and provides personal skills for the youths necessary for the management of their environment. The DJJ uses the deferred entry judgment, diversion, and informal probation to settle the minor cases involving the juveniles (Jonson-Reid et al, 2018). In this regard, the overall system works towards correcting behaviors among the youths, and consequently, reducing the number of juveniles in the halls.

Conclusion

The effectiveness of the juvenile justice system in any state relies on the rates of the convictions before the courts. The juvenile system in California works to achieve behavioral realignments rather than offering punishment to the youths. Just like any other state in the US, California also receives undoubtedly a high number of juvenile offenses. The existing foundations for dealing with such crimes are thus a critical factor in achieving a disciplined youth populace in California. According to section 654 of the California Welfare & Institutions, a juvenile case can be diverted to probation before a petition filing takes place. In so doing, the process helps in reducing the congestion in the juvenile halls. Some of the juvenile cases are indeed small cases, and need to be offloaded off the justice system due to the rate of their occurrences. In the juvenile courts, we have seen cases involving shoplifting, ad petty theft violations under the Penal code 484 pc shoplifting. The district attorneys would thus try to get the section 654 diversions or part 725 of the informal probation. The DJJ uses the informal probation, diversion, and differed entry judgment as for the tool to offload the congestion in the halls by dealing with the petty cases at hand. The nature of the juvenile justice system in California has instilled good behaviors in individuals, and has significantly reduced juvenile crime rates.

References

Barnert, E., S. Abrams, L., Maxson, C., Gase, L., Soung, P., Carroll, P., & Bath, E. (2017). Setting          a minimum age for juvenile justice jurisdiction in California. International journal of     prisoner health, 13(1), 49-56.

Cicourel, A. (2017). The social organization of juvenile justice. Routledge.

Jonson-Reid, M., Dunnigan, A., & Ryan, J. (2018). Foster Care and Juvenile Justice          Systems. Handbook of Foster Youth, 456.

Washburn, M. (2018). California’s Local Juvenile Facilities Can Absorb the State Youth    Correctional Population. Fact Sheet. Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice.