Setting a minimum age for juvenile justice jurisdiction in California

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPH-07-2016-0030
• Pages: 49-56
• Published date: 13 March 2017
• Date: 13 March 2017
• Author: Elizabeth S. Barnert,Laura S. Abrams,Cheryl Maxson,Lauren Gase,Patricia Soung,Paul Carroll,Eraka Bath
• Subject Matter: Health & social care,Criminology & forensic psychology,Prisoner health,Sociology,Sociology of crime & law,Public policy & environmental management,Policing,Criminal justice

Setting a minimum age for juvenile justice

jurisdiction in California

Elizabeth S. Barnert, Laura S. Abrams, Cheryl Maxson, Lauren Gase, Patricia Soung,

Paul Carroll and Eraka Bath

Abstract

Purpose –Despite the existence of minimum age laws for juvenile justice jurisdiction in 18 US states,

California has no explicit law that protects children (i.e. youth less than 12 years old) from being processed in

the juvenile justice system. In the absence of a minimum age law, California lags behind other states and

international practice and standards. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

Design/methodology/approach –In this policy brief, academics across the University of California

campuses examine current evidence, theory, and policy related to the minimum age of juvenile justice

jurisdiction.

Findings –Existing evidence suggests that children lack the cognitive maturity to comprehend or benefit

from formal juvenile justice processing, and diverting children from the system altogether is likely to be more

beneficial for the child and for public safety.

Research limitations/implications –Based on current evidence and theory, the authors argue that

minimum age legislation that protects children from contact with the juvenile justice system and treats them

as children in need of services and support, rather than as delinquents or criminals, is an important policy goal

for California and for other national and international jurisdictions lacking a minimum age law.

Originality/value –California has no law specifying a minimum age for juvenile justice jurisdiction, meaning

that young children of any age can be processed in the juvenile justice system. This policy brief provides a

rationale for a minimum age law in California and other states and jurisdictions without one.

Keywords Criminal justice system, Public health, Health policy, Human rights, Young offenders,

Juvenile offenders

Paper type Conceptual paper

Overview

This policy brief examines evidence, theory, and policy related to setting a minimum age for

juvenile delinquency jurisdiction (i.e. minimum age law) in the state of California. The paper

provides background on the juvenile justice system in California and minimum age laws;

summarizes research evidence relevant to children who come into conflict with the law; provides

professional association recommendations; and based on the aforementioned topics, asserts

our policy recommendations for California, recommendations that are relevant for other US

states and countries lacking a minimum age statute. For this policy brief, the term “children”

refers to youth less than 12 years old.

Background

Youth arrest and incarceration rates in the USA far exceed those of any other developed country

(Hazel, 2008). US law enforcement officials make over 1.3 million arrests of juveniles or minors

(i.e. children and adolescents under 18 years old) each year (Puzzanchera, 2014). Moreover,

following the prison boom of the 1980s and 1990s, by the year 2000, the youth incarceration rate

in the USA was roughly seven times higher than in England and 3,000 times higher than in Japan

(Hazel, 2008). Differing from the conventions of most other nations, US state laws, rather than

Received 16 July 2016

Revised 5 December 2016

24 December 2016

Accepted 5 January 2017

This work was funded by a seed

grant from the UC Criminal Justice

& Health Consortium and by a

UCLA Transdisciplinary Seed

Grant to the first and second

author. Dr Barnert was supported

by a grant from the NIH National

Center for Advancing Translational

Sciences (UL1TR000124) and the

UCLA Children’s Discovery and

Innovation Institute. The findings

and conclusions in this paper are

those of the authors and do not

necessarily represent the views

or the official position of the

affiliated institutions.

The authors affiliations can be

found at the end of this article.

DOI 10.1108/IJPH-07-2016-0030 VOL. 13 NO. 1 2017, pp. 49-56, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1744-9200

j

INTERNATIONALJOURNAL OF PRISONER HEALTH

j

PAG E 49