This article originally appeared in the January-February 2000 issue of the Children's Advocate newsmagazine, published by Action Alliance for Children.

PROPOSITION 21: Juvenile Crime Initiative

Former Governor Pete Wilson headed the campaign to qualify Prop. 21 for the statewide ballot. Intended to crack down on juvenile crime, the initiative would:

Put more juveniles in adult courts and prisons

• Give prosecutors the power to move a juvenile case to adult court for serious crimes. Now judges make this decision.
• Require adult trial for juveniles 14 or older charged with murder or specified sex offenses.
• Make it easier to send juveniles back to prison for probation violations.
• Prohibit minors charged in crimes involving firearms to be released to their parents before a trial.

Weaken confidentiality rights in juvenile proceedings for serious crimes

• Prohibit the sealing of juvenile court records for violent crimes.
• Authorize law enforcement agencies to make public the names of minors over 14 accused of serious felonies.

Toughen punishment of gang-related crimes

• Create a series of new, gang-related crimes with stiffer penalties, some with the death penalty.
• Require youth convicted of any gang offense to register with the police, as sex offenders do now.
• Make property destruction worth more than $400 (instead of $50,000) a felony, and increase the penalty from six months to a year.

Expand "three-strikes" law for juveniles and adults:

• Add several new "strike" (serious felony) offenses such as shooting from a vehicle and throwing flammable objects.

Arguments for

• Juvenile crime is a serious threat to Californians. Juvenile arrests for serious crimes increased 46 percent from 1984 to 1992, while murders committed more than doubled.
• This initiative would create a real deterrent to crime. Currently, juvenile offenders laugh off their token punishments.
• This initiative would not hinder any of the programs that work to prevent youths from leading lives of crime.
• Unfortunately, some juvenile offenders cannot be reached. The only way to stop them is to establish significant consequences.
• The recent drop in crime is evidence that the "three-strikes" law is working.

Proponents include: Former Gov. Pete Wilson, California District Attorneys Association, California Association of Sheriffs, California State Police Chiefs Association, California Peace Officers Association, Justice for Murder Victims, California Republican Party. The Yes on Prop. 21 campaign can be reached at (916) 446-6667.

Arguments against

• The threat of adult court and prison does not stop serious juvenile crime. In recent studies from New York and Florida, youths tried in adult courts had a greater chance of falling back into criminal behavior than comparable youths tried for the same thing in juvenile court. Florida, which allows prosecutors to move juvenile trials to adult court, has the second highest rate of violent juvenile crime in the U.S.
• Youth violence has been decreasing for more than eight years in California: the juvenile felony arrest rate dropped by 30 percent between 1991 and 1998. In the same period arrests of juveniles for homicide fell by more than 50 percent.
• This initiative will put hundreds of millions of dollars into trials and prisons, money that could otherwise be used for education and prevention programs.
• The job of prosecutors is to convict a youth. It is a conflict of interest for them to decide where the youth should be tried. Judges should continue to decide.
• This initiative assumes that youth are capable of understanding their actions and incapable of rehabilitation.
• Juvenile centers have programs to help youths find alternatives to crime. Throwing youths into adult prison takes away their opportunity to participate in these programs.
• This initiative ignores causes of crime such as poverty, mental illness, abuse, and neglect.
• Prevention and early intervention work better than punishment to reduce youth crime (see related article Prevention and early intervention cost less, work better).
• By expanding the "three-strikes" law, this initiative would put more people in prison for longer, even though California prisons are already operating at more than 200 percent capacity. Overcrowding leads to early release for many offenders.

Opponents include: Youth Law Center, Commonweal, Center for Juvenile and Criminal Justice (CJCJ), the California League of Women Voters, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice (CACJ), California Public Defenders Association, Juvenile Court Judges Association of California, California Council of Churches, Chief Probation Officers of California, Parent Teachers Association (PTA) of California. For more information on the No on Prop. 21 campaign, call CJCJ at (415) 621-5661

How much would Prop. 21 cost?

The Legislative Analyst's Office and the state Department of Finance estimate that every year the initiative will cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars and local governments tens of millions.