NCJ Number
36875
Journal
UCLA Law Review Volume: 23 Issue: 5 Dated: (JUNE 1976) Pages: 988-1016
Date Published
1976
Length
29 pages
Annotation
THIS COMMENT EXAMINES THE SUBSTANTIVE BASIS ON WHICH THE CALIFORNIA JUVENILE COURT DECIDES WHETHER A YOUTH OF 16 OR 17 IS A 'FIT AND PROPER SUBJECT' FOR JUVENILE COURT TREATMENT OR SHOULD BE TRIED AS AN ADULT.
Abstract
AN ANALYSIS OF THE REASONS WHY CERTAIN JUVENILE DELINQUENTS ARE EXCLUDED FROM REHABILITATION PROGRAMS AND TRIED AS ADULT CRIMINALS IS FOLLOWED BY A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF THE ABILITY OF THE FITNESS DECISION PROCESS TO PROVIDE A FAIR AND ACCURATE ASSESSMENT OF THOSE MINORS WHO MUST STAND TRIAL AS ADULTS. CONSIDERED ARE THE ABSENCE OF CLEAR SUBSTANTIVE STANDARDS OF THE OFFENDER'S AMENABILITY TO TREATMENT, THE BROAD DISCRETIONARY POWERS OF THE JUVENILE COURT JUDGE, AND THE EXISTENCE OF SIGNIFICANT LIMITATIONS ON TREATMENT-ORIENTED DISPOSITIONS. THE AUTHOR CONCLUDES THAT THE FITNESS DECISION-MAKING PROCESS MUST BE SUBJECT TO CAREFUL SCRUTINY IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT ONLY THOSE YOUTHS WITH NO REASONABLE PROSPECT FOR TREATMENT THROUGH THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM ARE TRANSFERRED TO THE CRIMINAL SYSTEM. TO THIS END, HE SUGGESTS THAT THE SUBSTANTIVE STANDARDS FOR FITNESS BE MORE CLEARLY FORMULATED AND REVIEWED AS PART OF A TEST FOR AMENABILITY TO TREATMENT. EFFECTIVE APPELLATE REVIEW OF TRANSFER IS ALSO PROPOSED AS THE PROTECTIVE MEASURE OF LAST RESORT.