Reactionary California Prop 21 Targets Oppressed Nation Youth

by MC44

Known as Proposition 21, the "Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime 
Prevention Act of 1998" will be put before California voters on 
March 7. The proposition aims to break down the juvenile justice 
system and make it easier on all counts to get juveniles into 
adult prisons, serving adult sentences and carrying adult criminal 
records. According to the state's analyst, passing the proposition 
would require building more than $1 billion in new jails and 
prisons in California,(1) in a state where the budget for prisons 
already exceeds the budget for all higher education.

Prop 21 gives the authority to try juvenile cases in adult courts 
to district attorneys, rather than judges, as is the law now. It 
also "requires adult trial for juveniles 14 or older charged with 
murder or specified sex offenses."(1) According to one critic of 
the measure, under the current arrangement, when prosecutors 
request a waiver to adult court, California judges support them 
about 80% of the time.(5) So the proposition would essentially 
codify (and worsen) current practice.

MIM Notes has previously reported on studies proving that 
prosecutorial waiver of juveniles to adult court does not reduce 
the juvenile crime rate.(2) And according to a new study by the 
same group, the Justice Policy Institute (JPI), "black, Latino and 
Asian teens are much more likely to be tried in adult court and 
sentenced to prison than are white offenders who commit the same 
crimes."(3)

Compounding the assault on oppressed nation youth in particular 
are the Prop 21's provisions to increase criminal penalties for 
so-called "gang" membership. If prosecutors can prove a crime was 
committed by a gang member (and gang is defined by prosecutors and 
police very broadly), than they can prosecute any member for 
conspiracy, regardless of their involvement in any particular 
crime. 

Dan Macallair from JPI explains it this way:

"... if a youth is sitting at home watching TV and two friends are 
arrested for car theft, the youth can be charged and imprisoned 
for conspiracy. The provisions for youth gang involvement are so 
far-reaching that any group of three or more youths can be called 
a gang and prosecuted."(4)

And Prop 21 aims to increase prison terms for gang-related crimes 
from anywhere from two to ten years on top of the original 
sentence. In the case of murder, if prosecutors can prove a gang 
affiliation, juveniles will be eligible for the death penalty. The 
proposition "also makes it easier to prosecute crimes related to 
gang recruitment, ... allows wider use of 'wiretaps' against known 
or suspected gang members, and requires anyone convicted of a 
gang-related offense to register with local law enforcement 
agencies."(1)

One of the worst, most vicious elements of Prop 21 is the 
provision to reduce the dollar amount defining "felony vandalism" 
from the current $50,000 to $400. This could translate into state 
prison time for tagging, for example, or any action that an 
insurance company could put a $400 price on. Worse, such low-level 
"offenses" could become "strikes" in California's infamous "three 
strikes and you're out" mandatory minimum prison sentences. 
According to Macallair: 

"The initiative also seeks to extend the "three strikes" law to 
more children by categorizing common schoolyard assaults as the 
equivalent of adult gun robberies. In other words, a child who 
gets arrested for taking lunch money from a classmate on two 
occasions and then is later arrested for possession of marijuana 
will potentially be subject to a mandatory 25-years-to-life adult 
prison sentence."(4)

Join us in exposing this reactionary law for what it is: an 
assault on oppressed nation youth. And most importantly, join MIM 
in building support for revolutionary struggle to overturn 
imperialism which systematically oppresses Amerika's internal 
colonies.

Notes:

1. http://vote2000.ss.ca.gov/VoterGuide/Propositions/21.htm

2. MIM Notes 197, November 1 1999.

3. Los Angeles Times, 29 January 2000.

4. San Francisco Chronicle, 10 January 2000.

5. Los Angeles Times, 1 February 2000.