te punished them like adults.
Juvenile courts replaced that philosophy with a belief in rehabilitation and treatment. Youthful indiscretions should not haunt a person forever. Those under a certain age should not be held to the same standard as adults. ôGenerally, the idea of juvenile law is that children do not have the maturity to grasp the import of criminality, and, thus, offenders are more in need of rehabilitation than incarcerationö (The Bakersfield Californian). According to the authors of Proposition 21, that philosophy suited a simpler era. These days, however, changes are needed to insure public safety.
Backers of Proposition 21 state their justification in the initiative's findings and declarations. While the overall crime rate has declined, juvenile arrests for serious crimes grew by 46 percent from 1983 to 1992, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. Similarly, the California Department of Justice reported a 54 percent increase in juvenile arrests for violent crimes between 1986 and 1995 (California Secretary of State).
According to the initiative's authors, street gangs pose a substantial threat to public safety. Moreover, the authors claim that while new laws (such as the Three Strikes Law) have succeeded in reducing the crime rate, ô[v]iolent juvenile crime has proven most resistant to this positive trend.ö This problem of youth and gang violence will only increase as California's population of young people continues its rapid growth, as predicted (California Secretary of State).
The solution to these problems, according to the authors, lies in junking the current juvenile justice system and making it more like the adult courts. The juvenile court philosophy of rehabilitation and treatment of juvenile offenders was adopted at a time when most juvenile crime consisted of petty offenses. That philosophy is woefully out of date at a time when juveniles are increasingly committing violent cr...