I am currently working on the next segment of “The Profit in Locking Up Our Kids” series.  It is taking quite a bit of research as a try to follow the paper trail for a multi billion dollar industry. 

In the mean time, this article came across my e-mail and I find it very timely.  We are all trying to prepare ourselves to vote responsibly in the upcoming election ( I assume you all are voting RIGHT?).  I believe that in every state in the United States, voters are being presented a proposition, amendment or ballot initiative that would lend some kind of support to expanding police departments, build court houses, build county jails, change criminal justice laws or all of the above.  I caution you to really think these pieces of legislation through.  I am going to publish this article which is written by Guadalupe Garcia.  Lupe has worked as a juvenile counselor in California but does not write this article on behalf of her facility or position.  Rather she writes this article from her observations over the course of her career and the impact that our laws have had on our children.  Thank you for your work Lupe.

Proposition 6 or The Safe Neighborhood Act Is Not the Answer!In November Californians will vote on an anti-crime measure sponsored by State Senator George Runner called Proposition 6 or The Safe Neighborhood Act which proposes to bring gang activity under control and punish individual gang members severely. It is the opinion of this writer that the new proposition is more of the same “tough on crime” policies that have burdened California’s budget and contributed to the socio-economic disparities represented in the prison industrial system. In short it represents a step back in juvenile justice because it facilitates the channeling of youth into the adult system. This adult system has proven defected and non-rehabilitative with recidivism rates as high as 70% despite ever-increasing monetary investments. Prop. 6 was written by Mike Reynolds, the same author of the “3 Strikes and Your Out” passed by voters back in 1994. With strong financial backing from special interest groups including real estate developers, bail agents, manufacturers of GPS monitoring devices and surveillance services, Prop 6 promises to make our neighborhoods safer and 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 recent drug or violent criminal conviction the housing subsidies would be withdrawn and the entire family loses their housing.   Cristina Gomez of the Burns Institute/The Community Justice Network for Youth calls the initiative “predatory legislation” because it applies specifically to the young and lower income communities of color. “We feel like this is just one more initiative that is going to put the state into a state of bankruptcy…[and] 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.”Youths as young as 14 may already be found unfit for Juvenile court and prosecuted as adults under Prop. 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. Michael Kresser, executive director of the 6th District Appellate Program, says, “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.”The ease in which offenders could be labeled as gang members provides unfair increases in sentences which in turn creates unfair burdens on Californian’s who must pay more for the rising costs housing prisoners for longer periods of time.By 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. Plus since the majority of the labeled gang members come almost exclusively from lower income communities of color, 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. Prop. 6 has further implications in that if a youth is found guilty of a drug or violent crime his/her family may lose 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 family’s housing is not necessarily threatened 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 lose 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  then 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 raise a red flag. The nonpartisan California Legislative Analyst’s Office has determined 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? What’s more early intervention programs risk being put on the back burner as monetary priority is allotted to incarceration. We can all concur that the gang’s within are communities present a problem we need to address. The choice in November is whether Californians choose to continue with heavy-handed policies and pass Prop 6 or opt for 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 to rehabilitate our young people. It also harms our lower income communities by continuing to drain resources for preventative programs and carries on the practice of labeling our young offenders as violent and unredeemable beings.