Policy Analysis

Policy Analysis: SB 889 An Act Relating to Juveniles

History of An act relating to juveniles (SB 889)

Senate Bill (SB) 889, titled An act relating to juveniles, is a law proposed by California State Senator Nancy Skinner that would raise the raise the age limit in California’s youth justice system to include 18- and 19-year-olds (Skinner, 2020). Existing law automatically refers those aged 18 and older to the adult criminal justice system. Under this proposal, 18- and 19-year-old individuals entering the criminal justice system would be processed through juvenile courts which allows for a wider range of rehabilitative and restorative interventions to be administered (“Sen. Nancy Skinner,” 2020). This proposal is based on scientific evidence and, in the context of our overcrowded adult criminal justice system, will produce greater public safety outcomes. SB 889 is a progressive step toward criminal justice reform and is in the interest of all of society.

Problems Necessitating SB 889

With 2.27 million prisoners, the United States (U.S.) has the highest incarceration rate in the world, accounting for 25% of the word’s prison population (Karger & Stoesz, 2018, p. 50). According to Columbia University’s Justice Lab (n.d.), since the 1970s, the prison population has grown seven-fold due to changes in U.S. drug policy. These changes led to “a transformation of sentencing policy” which placed “a new emphasis on incapacitation and deterrence as the main purposes of punishment” (Columbia University Justice Lab, n.d., para. 1). This has resulted in an oversaturated criminal justice system counterproductive to correction and rehabilitation. A substantial and disproportionate number of incarcerated individuals are younger adults whose involvement in the criminal justice system “hinders efforts to effectively reduce the workload and expense…to curb incarceration rates” (Perker & Chester, 2017, para. 3).

The criminal justice system in the U.S. has evolved considerably to take human development into account in administering justice: “[The U.S. Supreme Court] have abolished the death penalty for crimes committed during adolescence, found mandatory life-without-parole sentences for murder in violation of the 8th Amendment, and eliminated life-without-parole sentences for crimes less than murder” (Juvenile Justice & the Adolescent Brain, 2015, para. 1). In addition, in Massachusetts, life sentences for juveniles were ruled unconstitutional (Juvenile Justice & the Adolescent Brain, 2015). However, discrepancies between the science of brain development and society’s definition of adulthood still pervade our criminal justice system. For example, some aspects of our current laws reflect scientific research which shows that the brain is “not yet fully developed in 18- and 19-year-olds….this research, as well as the documented higher incidents of car accidents among 18- and 19-year-olds, is what led most states to raise the legal drinking age to 21 and car rental companies to restrict their services to those 21 and older” (Skinner, 2020).

Psychologist Jeffrey Arnett (as cited in Perker & Chester, 2017) states that those between the age of 18 and 25 are considered emerging adults, a developmental period characterized by the transition from being a parent-dependent child to becoming a “fully mature, independent adult who engages as a productive and healthy member of society” (para. 2). This period is often marked by the decreased impulse control and poor decision making the criminal justice system associates with juveniles. Emerging adults are “overly motivated by reward seeking behavior, more susceptible to peer pressure, and more prone to risk-taking and impulsive behavior;” elements which can make one more inclined to criminal activity (Perker & Chester, 2017, para. 8). Yet, the current system makes no distinction between the behaviors of an 18-year-old and that of a 40-year-old. The implications of such enforcement and sentencing are lasting and have a detrimental impact on communities faced with various systemic challenges.

Bill Status

SB 889 was introduced by Sen. Skinner on January 24, 2020, read for the first time on January 27,2020 and referred to the Committee on Rules on February 6, 2020 (Skinner, 2020).

Potential Impact of SB 889

The stated purpose of a correctional facility is to correct behaviors deemed incompatible with a harmonious and law-abiding society. However, the failure of our criminal justice system to do just that is demonstrated by high rates of recidivism; almost 44% of incarcerated individuals will return to prison within the first year of their release rather than integrate and become productive members of society (Alper & Durose, 2018). Treatment, education, counseling and other rehabilitative services are often underutilized, inaccessible or limited in the adult corrections system (Tucker, 2020). Yet, these services are integral to reducing recidivism rates and achieving successful outcomes.

Weber, Schlueter, & Bellas (2015, para. 28) note in a Vermont study that “the three-year recidivism rate for juveniles adjudicated in the Family Division was 25%, compared to a 47% three-year recidivism rate for juveniles convicted in the Criminal Division.” The results indicate that access to rehabilitative services in the juvenile system lessens chances of recidivism which, consequently, opens more opportunity for offenders to find jobs, pursue an education, or engage in some form of self-betterment that would benefit society. Such an action would disrupt the perpetuation of criminality within certain communities and have lasting, generational impacts and public safety outcomes. Senator Nancy Skinner (2020, para. 5) notes that SB 889 “will make youth services, programs, and enhanced supervision available to 18- and 19-year-olds, who when processed in the adult system, get little or nothing in the way of support or rehabilitation.”

Referring 18- and 19-year-old offenders to the juvenile criminal justice system would not be unprecedented. Vermont can serve as a model for California as it was the first state to refer lower level offenders age 18 and above to juvenile courts. The decision was based on evidence that showed lack of distinction between the brains of 18- and 19-year-olds compared to 16- and 17-year-olds. Karen Vastine (as cited in Becker, 2019, para. 14), of the Vermont Department of Children and Families, indicated that “when you’re providing services that are developmentally appropriate for this age group — not lumping them in with hardened adult offenders — and when ensuring that the level of intervention meets the level of risk, you tend to have better outcomes.” Vermont’s policy is projected to achieve improved public safety outcomes and lessen criminal justice expenses long term by decreasing recidivism rates (Becker, 2019). Such results would understandably help ease the burden of an overwhelmed criminal justice system and overcrowded prison environments. 

The economic feasibility of SB 889 in California is easier to consider when examining and comparing the existing juvenile and adult criminal justice systems. In 2006, the California prison population, in a system meant to carry a maximum of 85,000, exceeded 165,000 as a result of policy reforms in the 1990s such as mandatory minimum sentences, a Three Strikes law, and aggressively trying juveniles as adults (Hodenfield & Walker, 2019). Although that figure was almost 15 years ago, California’s struggle with the legacy of the 1990s “Tough on Crime” era is demonstrated by an overburdened adult criminal justice system. Meanwhile, California has observed a “long-term drop in youth crime that has left almost every juvenile hall in California more than half empty…but as the population in custody has declined, the amount of money spent on many facilities has remained flat, causing the annual cost to house a youth to skyrocket” (Tucker, 2020, para. 6). This reflects an economic issue in which allocation of resources would need to be reevaluated. Additionally, this raises alarm over whether funds for public safety are being used constructively “when juvenile halls around the state are operating at below capacity” (Tucker & Palomino, 2019, para. 15).

The current state of our prison system incentivizes individuals to maintain an ethically questionable industrial complex. The system is described as a “vibrant industry that includes government officials, contractors, private correctional corporations, police departments, and large segments of the legal and judicial system…[who] have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo…regardless of its effectiveness” (Karger & Stoesz, 2018, p. 50). SB 889 could potentially influence or disrupt the status quo of mass incarceration; however, this would be a productive step toward criminal justice reform with numerous social justice implications. Columbia University’s Justice Lab (n.d., para. 5) notes that such a measure is “an opportunity to imagine a basic transformation of justice—to develop a new framework that relies less on harsh punishment, more on community strength, and reduces the explosive interactions of violence, poverty, and racial inequality.”

SB 889 challenges existing cultural norms which places emphasis on punishment and retributive justice. However, examining evidence on recidivism and its relation to systemic injustices shows that the path toward creating a more equitable future for all involves compassion and interventions based on scientific evidence. The National Association of Social Workers (NASW), in its code of ethics, provides a framework for individual and collective behaviors, attitudes and actions beneficial to society. SB 889 is in line with the code of ethics as it recognizes the broader community implications of an individual’s sentence. Standard 6.01 encourages one to “promote the general welfare of society, from local to global levels, and the development of people, their communities, and their environments…[social workers] should advocate for living conditions conducive to the fulfillment of basic human needs and should promote social, economic, political, and cultural values and institutions that are compatible with the realization of social justice” (NASW, 2017). The existing prison system and society’s attitudes toward the rehabilitation of offenders are sometimes misaligned with these realizations of social justice. The basic needs which foster an improved future for emerging adults and society are not met in an adult prison.

SB 889 is a social justice action in that it acts “to expand choice and opportunity for all people, with special regard for vulnerable, disadvantaged, oppressed, and exploited people and groups” (NASW, 2017). Incarceration in the United States disproportionately impacts individuals subjected to institutional racism and decreased economic and educational opportunities. Individuals, families and communities affected by these systemic forces bear much of the weight of failed criminal justice policies. Rehabilitation, counseling and other therapeutic resources during sensitive developmental periods provides opportunities for growth to these individuals, families and communities. SB 889 is an economically feasible effort based on scientific understanding of human brain development and stands to benefit society on micro, mezzo and macro levels. In order to address mass incarceration and build safer communities, this moral imperative must be confronted. SB 889 advocates for investing in human capital and recognizes the humanity and potential of young offenders. 

References

Alper, M. & Durose, M. (2018). 2018 update on prisoner recidivism: a 9-year follow-up period (2005-2014). Retrieved from https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/18upr9yfup0514.pdf

Becker, D. (2019, October 3). Why Vermont Raised Its Juvenile Court Age Above 18 – And Why Mass. Might, Too. Retrieved from https://www.wbur.org/news/2019/10/03/juvenile-court-age-vermont-massachusetts

Columbia University Justice Lab. (n.d.). Emerging adult justice. Retrieved from https://justicelab.columbia.edu/EAJ

Juvenile Justice & the Adolescent Brain. (2015). Brain science is informing juvenile justice policy and practice. Retrieved from http://clbb.mgh.harvard.edu/juvenilejustice/

Karger, H. J., & Stoesz, D. (2018). American social welfare policy: a pluralist approach. NY, NY: Pearson.

Perker, S.S. & Chester, L. (2017). Emerging Adults: A distinct population that calls for an age-appropriate approach by the justice system. Retrieved from https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/selenperker/files/emerging_adult_justice_issue_brief_final.pdf

Sen. Nancy Skinner Announces Bill to Raise the Age to be Tried as an Adult. (2020, January 28). Retrieved from https://sd09.senate.ca.gov/news/20200128-sen-nancy-skinner-announces-bill-raise-age-be-tried-adult

Skinner, N. (2020). An act relating to juveniles, SB 889, California Legislature, Regular Sess. Retrieved from https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB889

Tucker, J. (2020, January 28). California’s 18- and 19-year-olds would be minors in court under proposed legislation. Retrieved from https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/California-s-18-and-19-year-olds-would-be-15010452.php

Tucker, J., & Palomino, J. (2019, March 21). Vanishing Violence: Tracking California’s remarkable collapse in youth crime. Retrieved from https://projects.sfchronicle.com/2019/vanishing-violence/?no-cache=1

Weber, R., Schlueter, M., & Bellas, M. (2015). Juvenile recidivism study: 2008-2011. Retrieved from http://www.crgvt.org/uploads/5/2/2/2/52222091/crg_report_2015_03_analysis_juvenile.pdf