I think there’s something to be optimistic about because I believe that many people are starting to realize that building prisons and incarcerating teens and young adults is to the detriment and exclusion of building up our educational systems and rehabilitation programs. Developing punitive programs for teens instead of focusing on programs that will really benefit our children will ultimately haunt us.
–Joanne Hobbs, Catalyst for Youth Director

mmmmGuadalupe Garcia is a counselor at SCC Juvenile Hall. She has a bachelor’s degree in Ethnic Studies and Film Studies with a focus on socio-economic disparities that communities of color are subjected to. As a professional she continues to study and strive for a solution to our communities disadvantages. Her experience working with young offenders, a great majority of them young men of color, prompted her interest on the circumstances drawing young people to socially unacceptable behaviors and led her to research relevant legislation, policies and laws drawn up to address such behaviors. Ms. Garcia is not representing her department or her position as a Juvenile counselor but in working with young people convicted of serious charges she can attest that these children continue to grow and mature. It is in this growth that she has personally witnessed the remorse and even attempts at accountability for their actions. The Juvenile Justice System needs to take this inherent capability that children have for change and offer more rehabilitative alternatives versus the “tough on crime” practices.tices that have been prominent in our current criminal justice system.
On November 2008 Californians will vote on an anti-crime measure sponsored by State Senator George Runner called Proposition 6 or The Safe Neighborhood Act. It is the opinion of this writer that the new proposition is more of the same “tough on crime” policies that have further burdened California’s budget, contributed to the socio-economic disparities represented in the prison industrial system and represents a step back in juvenile justice in that it facilitates the channeling of youth into the adult system. This adult system has proven defected and non-rehabilitative in that recidivism rates are as high as 70% despite the ever-increasing monetary investments.

In a press conference in Sacramento California on October 22, 2007 senator Runner advocates for his proposed bill and declares;

“Unfortunately California lacks a comprehensive state wide plan to bring gang activity under control and take back our neighborhoods… It’s time to send a message to gang members and street thugs that Californians have had it and their violent crimes and lawless ways must end…”

Prop 6 was written by Mike Reynolds, the same author of the “3 Strikes and Your Out” passed by voters back in 1994. On Reynolds Safe Neighborhood Act homepage he states;

“The major portion of crime that California is now experiencing is a direct result of violent street gangs that are taking over our inner cities. Someone sticks a gun in your face they don’t ask whether you’re a republican or democrat, however, for over 40 years California struggles to reduce crime has been divided along party lines in our state legislature…”

With strong financial backing from special interest groups Prop 6 received meaningful publicity along with professionally trained signature gatherers whom collected over 750,000 signatures, wining the approval on April 25 for the initiative to be placed on the November 2008 ballet. Along with the promise to make our neighborhoods safer the initiative carries specific implications for youths entering the juvenile system. Under the proposed measure;
• Any 14 year old who is convicted of a “gang-related” felony would be found unfit for Juvenile court and thus be prosecuted as an adult.

• Removing or disabling a monitoring device that was issued as part of sentencing will become a criminal act.
• Recipients of subsidized housing must submit an annual criminal background check for every member of the household, including youths. If anyone in the home is found to have a resent drug or violent criminal conviction the housing subsidies would be withdrawn and the entire family looses their housing.
Cristina Gomez of the Burns Institute/The Community Justice Network for Youth commented on the proposition in a resent interview;

“…it’s what we at the Burns Institute like to call predatory legislation which means that the impact of the legislation will only apply to communities of color and target communities of color… for the last 10 to 12 years California has seen a number of legislation that negatively impacts youths of color and communities of color, 3 strikes, civic gang injunctions, prop 21. All of these have negatively impacted our communities and we feel like this is just one more that is going to put the state into a state of bankruptcy… it isn’t a move in a positive way to provide our communities or our youth who need intervention and prevention programs... We know that the implications of this will result in more youth being funneled into the prison industrial complex system.”

The question of racial biases may draw up discomfort in studying the proposition but the socio-economical implications of Prop 6 do in fact target specifically the young and the lower income communities of color.
Youths as young as 14 may already be found unfit for Juvenile court and prosecuted as adults under proposition 21 which California voters passed in 2000. A youth must fit a five point criteria before he/she is found unfit for juvenile court. Some of the criteria are the degree of criminal sophistication, previous delinquent history and the circumstances and gravity of the offense.

In the event that Prop 6 passes a youth as young as 14 need not fit the five criteria of Prop 21 but need only be found guilty of a “gang-related” felony. Once in the adult system the youth is now subjected to the harsh gang enhancement laws that were put into affect during the late 1980’s. With gang enhancements the prosecutor must identify that the criminal activity was gang related in that there were 3 or more persons, there’s a common name and that they are engaged in patterns of “gang activities.” The prosecutor must also prove that the crime was “committed for the benefit” of the gang. Sited on the New American Media news feature; Michael Kresser, executive director of the 6th District Appellate Program, states;

“Prosecutors are bringing in gang experts who say that any criminal activity increases the reputation of the gang, thus meeting the ‘benefit’ standard. This turns any crime done by someone labeled as a gang member into a 186.22 (CA penal code defining longer sentences due to the gang nature of the charge) even if the crime had nothing to do with a gang.”

Though it may be welcoming for the DA and police, the ease in which offenders can be labeled as gang members provides unfair increases in sentences which in turn creates unfair burdens on Californian’s which must pay more for the rising costs housing prisoners for longer periods of time.

In persuading the public the language of Prop 21 stated,

“The rehabilitative/Treatment juvenile court philosophy was adopted at a time when most juvenile crime consisted of petty offenses. The juvenile system is not well-equipped to adequately protect the public from violent and repeat serious offenders.”

This same theology continues in Prop 6 where the young offender is labeled as an unredeemable wrongdoer who posses a clear and present threat to the community. In passing Prop 6 a younger crop of offenders will be funneled into a legal system already categorizing them as career criminals due to their “gang participation” despite being as young as 14.

Another obvious implication is that the majority of the labeled gang members come almost exclusively from lower income communities of color. By further lowering the standard for being found unfit for juvenile court the newer crop will only increase the documented racial disparities in the prison industrial system.

In the independent and non-profit PEW Charitable Trusts report “One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008,” it states that as of January 2008 “…more than 1 in 100 adults is now locked up in America… That statistic masks far higher incarceration rates by race….” In the diagrams below the marked disparities are demonstrated.

SOURCES: Analysis of "Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2006," published June 2007 by the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. All demographic statistics, with exception of "1 in every 100 adults" are midyear 2006, not 2008 figures.
Looking at the statistics one may argue that racial biases are not intrinsically racist but that simply put; young men of color tend to commit more violent and gang influenced crimes. Efforts in documenting specifics in cases where young offenders were charged as adults and sentenced to the harshest sentencing Life Without Parole have been made. The Human Rights Watch org in their January 2008 report; “When I die, They’ll Send Me Home,” yielded the following;
“In CA for every 21.4 Afro. Am. Youth arrested for murder in the state, one is serving LWOP sentence; whereas for every 123.31 white youth arrested for murder, one is serving LWOP… these disparities support the hypothesis that there is something other than the criminality of these two racial groups-something that happens after their arrests for murder such as unequal treatment by prosecutors, before courts, and by sentencing judges-that causes the disparities between sentencing of Afro. Am. And white youth to LWOP.”
Perhaps the theology of Prop 21 and other “tough on crime” legislature has contributed in that parities within the legal system are more likely to seek out and deliver the most severe sentences to young men of color simply because they “fit the mold.”
Prop 6 has further implications in that if a youth is found guilty of a drug or violent crime his/her family may loose their subsidized housing. Presently if the youth in the household does not attend school or gets in trouble, per section 8 the rent is raised. If the youth is incarcerated but is attending school in juvenile hall then the housing is not threatened necessarily but if the youth is found to be an adult and convicted of a drug or violent crime then per Prop 6 the entire family loose their housing. The family of the youth offender will now find themselves in further economic strife. If the youth serves his sentence and after release attempts to return home his return may not be convenient due to his criminal background. There is the possibility of the youth becoming homeless.
If the socio-economic disparities do not manage to raise concern with the voters of California then perhaps the economical projections of the proposal will.
The nonpartisan California Legislative Analyst’s Office has summarized that the net state cost for implementing the initiative is a half billion dollars annually for increased costs of criminal justice programs, prison and parole operations. Can Californian’s realistically pay such a high price tag especially when previous investments in “tough on crime” laws have proven to yield such poor results in a rehabilitative sense?
The PEW report reads;
“… lawmakers are learning that current prison growth is not driven primarily by a parallel increase in crime, or a corresponding surge in the population at large. Rather, it flows principally from a wave of policy choices that are sending more lawbreakers to prison and through popular “three-strikes” measures and other sentencing enhancements, keeping them there longer.”
Last year California spent $8.8 billion making it the biggest investing state on correctional spending. In the last 20 years California has seen a 216% increase in correction spending but by comparison only a 21% increase spending in higher education as displayed in the graph bellow.

Much of the rise is due to the cost of inmate healthcare and the recent lawsuits against negligent and or insufficient medical care. Inmate health concerns include but are not limited to communicable diseases from unprotected sex, tattooing, fighting, drug use and the growing number of aging inmates. These health concerns are correlated to the high population rates that Prop 6 will only serve to worsen in that it will recruit a younger group and offer up more gang enhancements… longer prison sentences.
Another point of interest that the report draws up, the state faces competitive challenges when administrating funds to state provided programs such as early childhood education, which has proven to be a great preventative measure against juvenile and early adult crime. Early intervention programs risk being put on the back burner as monetary priority is allotted to incarceration.
Though Prop 6 claims “some additional” funding will be provided for preventative programs it clearly states monies, “shall be distributed to assist counties for the expense of housing juvenile offenders.” In the proposition monies will have to pass first through the probation department for housing, supervision and treatment services before any of the funds are allocated to other county departments working in drug treatment or mental health. The problem remains in that with so much monetary emphasis laid out in incarceration the area of focus is then taken away from the preventative programs such as the recently enacted California Gang Reduction, Intervention and Prevention Program (CalGRIP) which is a multidisciplinary approach of the gang question. A point of interest in this program is that gang members are helped in rehabilitation and reintegration in that monies will be used for job training and businesses will be offered tax benefits for hiring ex gang members. These same men will further aid their communities in that the program offers the opportunity through AmeriCorps for these reformed gang members to mentor incarcerated youth and/or youth who are on parole.
With the majority of the monies being pumped into incarceration programs like CalGRIP and other community based rehabilitative programs risk being cut.
But who stands to gain monetary gains from Prop 6 other than CDC and Probation?
In “The Center for Juvenile and Criminal Justice Report” it declares that Prop 6 is serving the interest of lobbyist and special interest groups. It states;
“Prop 6 is a politically motivated effort that runs counter to virtually all non-partisan policy analysis and was designed by Sacramento-based lobbyist to serve the interest of their clients.”
And whom is the “cliental?” The list include…
Henry T. Nicholas 111 who contributed 1 billion. This same prominent businessman (co-founder of Broadcam Corporation) has been indicted in June 2008 of 25 counts of felony charges dealing with drug, prostitution, extortion and conspiracy. Under the same “tough on crime” laws that he has helped promote, Mr. Nicholas if found guilty and charged with the present hard sentences is looking at over 300 years in state prison.
Larry Rasmussen has donated 200 thousand. Rasmussen has strong holdings in heavy construction companies and is the largest real estate developer in the San Fernando Valley.
The Golden State Bail Agents Association for Public Safety donated 40 thousand. The association is a lobbyist organization looking out for the interests of state bail agents. Further increase in prison population and sentencing creates more revenues for bail agents.
Behavior Interventions Incorporated donated 2 thousand. The company provides GPS monitoring devices and surveillance services.
Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) donated 1 thousand. This corporation provides housing for out of state Californian prisoners due to over population issues.
That Mr. Henry T. Nicholas is the least deserving of all Californian’s to pass judgment on our youth goes without saying as does that the corporations mentioned here stand to profit with the passing of Prop 6.
Prop 6 is serving special interest and lobbyist not necessarily Californians or their neighborhoods.
That gang’s within our communities are a problem that needs to be addressed all can concur. The work remains for Californians to decide how they want to approach the gang issue. Californians can choose to continue with the heavy-handed policies and pass Prop
6 or they can consider a more restorative justice approach. Under the restorative justice model the emphasis on punishment does not exceed the needs and concerns of the victims, the wrongdoer and the community at large. The “tough on crime” approach carries an expensive price tag while failing in rehabilitation, harms our lower income communities by further draining resources for preventative programs and carries on the practice of labeling our young offenders as violent and unredeemable beings.

Sources: Safe Neighborhoods Act:
Yes on Prop 6
Stop Gang, Gun and Street Crime
www.safeneighborhoodsact.com
The PEW Charitable Trusts
One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008
www.pewcenteronthestates.org
Nonpartisan Analysis
http://ca.lww.orgBallot Measure Takes Wrong Approach
By David Muhammad August 21, 2008
http://globecrimeseries.wordpress.com
“When I Die, They will Send me Home”
Youth sentenced to Life without Parole in California
By Human Rights Watch January 2008
www.hrw.org
BeyondChron The Voice of the Rest
Prop 6: Serving the Interest of Lobbyists and Special Interests
By Center for Juvenile and Criminal Justice, August 20, 2008
http://www.beyondchron.org

r