By Jeff Adachi and Roger Chan
There is an old adage among judges: Hard cases make bad law. Often, when a terrible crime happens, there is a rush to pass a new criminal law to redress the tragedy. The case of Audrie Potts, the impetus for Senator Jim Beall’s Senate Bill 838, is indeed tragic. But SB 838, which creates a mandatory minimum term of confinement that is unprecedented in California’s juvenile justice system, is not the answer.
Mandatory minimum sentences are one-size-fits-all sentencing schemes common in adult criminal systems. Designed to prosecute kingpins and crime bosses, they are inherently punitive and intended to exact retribution for crimes committed by an adult. We know from science and from real life, however, that youth are different than adults, and are more amenable to treatment. As the U.S. Supreme Court stated, “[F]rom a moral standpoint it would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater possibility exists that a minor’s character deficiencies will be reformed.”
Importing mandatory minimum sentences from the adult system would undermine the rehabilitation and treatment goals of California’s juvenile justice system in place for more than 50 years. Currently, when determining sanctions for youthful offenders, juvenile court judges weigh the severity of the young person’s offense, the impact on the victim, and factors such as mental illness or intellectual disability. The judge who sees all this evidence is in the best position to fashion appropriate consequences for juvenile crimes. Requiring judges to impose a mandatory minimum sanction eliminates this important judicial discretion that is a cornerstone of our system of juvenile justice.
Mandatory minimum sentencing schemes, moreover, do not reduce crime. They drive up incarceration rates without enhancing public safety. Most importantly, they exacerbate already shameful racial disparities throughout the adult and juvenile justice systems.
There have been significant improvements in California’s juvenile justice system since the atrocities and abuses in state facilities in decades past. The reforms have been driven by a scientific understanding of adolescent development and evidence-based practices. These reforms have been based on rehabilitative not retributive goals. SB 838′s mandatory minimum sentencing scheme would reverse this trend to the detriment of our youth and communities.
SB 838 is before the Assembly Public Safety Committee on June 17. We need to be smart on crime, and not let a single tragic case make us compromise the integrity of our system of justice for all youth in California.
Jeff Adachi is the public defender of San Francisco. Roger Chan is the executive director of the East Bay Children’s Law Offices.
Audrie’s Law Faces Tough Assembly Committee Hearing
(Press release from Senator Beall’s office)
Audrie’s Law, a proposal requiring mandatory sentencing for juveniles convicted of sexual assaulting unconscious or developmentally disabled victims, will face an uphill battle before the Assembly Committee on Public Safety on Tuesday, June 17, 9 a.m.
“This bill came out of the Senate with zero ‘no’ votes,” said Senator Jim Beall, who authored SB 838. “But it’s been a challenge to convince members of the Assembly committee that what happened to Audrie Pott and to victims in similar situations merits offenders being sent for two years to an out-of-home placement program operated by the local county juvenile probation department where they will receive appropriate rehabilitation services, including sex offender treatment.
“It’s difficult for me to understand why there is opposition to reforming the legal definition of ‘forcible rape’ to include the rape of an unconscious or disabled person. The law must be made to protect victims, not rapists.’’
Audrie’s father, Larry Pott, said he was surprised that there is any opposition to the bill.
“Rape is a horrible crime and for this reason Audrie’s Law was approved 35-0 in the Senate,” Pott said. “Over 112,000 people have signed a petition supporting it. Prosecutors and police chiefs support it. I cannot believe the Assembly committee would consider killing this bill. It defies common sense.
“If lawmakers do not vote for Audrie’s Law, they are effectively saying that raping an unconscious victim is less of a crime, and plying a victim with alcohol is acceptable. What happened to Audrie must not happen to another victim – the law needs to be changed. Audrie’s Law warns juvenile rapists that their heinous crimes will be taken seriously.”
Sheila Pott, Audrie’s mother, said SB 838 restores balance to the juvenile sexual assault statutes.
“It would be a shame that given the public outcry to address the need for stricter penalties for sexual assault and cyberbullying crimes that we would fail to take actions that lead to this change,’’ she said. “Rapists – whether they are an adult or a juvenile – must be held accountable for their actions. It’s time to take a stand for the victims and to stop coddling the assailants.’’
Besides calling for a mandatory minimum sentence, Audrie’s Law strengthening California’s cyberbullying statutes by adding a sentencing enhancement of one year to any sexual assault in which the offender shares pictures or texts of the crime.
In addition, the bill calls for trials and hearings of juvenile’s charged with sexual assaults under Audrie’s Law to be open to the public and the news media.
The bill is named after Audrie Pott, a Saratoga High student who took her life after she was sexually assaulted while unconscious by classmates and photos of the incident were shared with other students.
A juvenile court, behind closed doors, sustained the charges against the assailants, who were handed down sentences that ranged from 30 to 45 days, according to news reports. Because of their ages, the boys’ identities were withheld by the court.
Appalled by the light sentences for such a severe crime, Audrie’s family sought to change the law with Senator Beall’s help.
The bill is supported by the Santa Clara County Office of the District Attorney, which drafted its language; the Police Chiefs Association; the ARC California; United Cerebral Palsy of California; the American Association of University Women; Crime Victims United of California; the Association of Regional Center Agencies; and the Counseling and Support Services for Youth.
Jeff Adachi wrote:
> Mandatory minimum sentencing schemes, moreover,
> do not reduce crime.
Unless he has proof that the prison guards are letting people out of jail to rob, rape and kill this is a false statement.
> Most importantly, they exacerbate already shameful racial
> disparities throughout the adult and juvenile justice systems.
Saying that a law to lock up the sickos that rape “unconscious or developmentally disabled victims” will “exacerbate” the racial disparities in jails sounds racist since it means you think that mostly people of color will be doing the rapes and sexual assaults.
If you were to sit in courtrooms all day, day after day, and watch what actually goes on, you would have a much better understanding of Jeff Adachi’s comments.
People are charged, and convicted, based on their social/racial status.
The criminal justice, oops, legal system, is not conducted in a fair or ethical manner.
All you need is to hear for yourself defense and prosecution attorneys discussing and reaching agreement on which cases each will win or lose, as if people are poker chips. That’s only the tip of the iceberg of injustice in the legal system. You really can’t apply abstract logic to Adachi’s comments.
mandatory minimums are huge error for juvenile offenders. juvenile’s brains are not the same as adults and treating them as adults only proliferates the mass incarceration mentality.
I’m surprised we’re reading about this the day after the hearing.