There has been a philosophical debate in the criminal justice system for nearly as long as a system has existed. At a basic level we understand that a crime is only committed when a person has the required intent to commit a crime. For example, it is not possible for one to commit arson while they light a match sleepwalking. Thus, a debate has long ago developed over the mental development one must have in order to commit a crime. The United States Supreme Court has looked at this issue in regards to the mentally handicapped. Where a fully developed adult’s IQ is objectively proven, less debate arises. However, at what age do we hold children accountable for the criminal acts they commit? Furthermore, how severely do we punish a child once we have a verdict of guilty? A new California child offender law for the juvenile justice system seeks to address just that.
Edel Gonzalez’s Murder Charge
Edel Gonzalez was 16-years-old when he was found guilty of a criminal act. As a child without a father, he looked to older members of his gang for leadership. He was initiated at the age of 11. He spent a great deal of his time after that drinking. In 1991 Edel took part in a carjacking in Orange County, California. The victim was murdered; Edel was not the triggerman. One of the two adult co-defendants unexpectedly shot the driver. Edel was heavily intoxicated at the time. In 1993 Edel was sentenced by Orange County Superior Court to spend the rest of his life in prison without the possibility of parole. At the age of 32, Edel has now spent the majority of his life behind bars in a maximum-security prison. A new juvenile criminal law in California is now the reason Edel can leave the prison bars behind him. The law seeks to re-evaluate the sentencing of children to life in prison in the state of California’s juvenile justice system.
Underage Criminal Charges in the U.S.
The United States is currently the only country with a developed juvenile justice system that punishes children under the age of 18 with life in prison without the possibility of parole. In California alone there are 330 inmates who were sentenced as children and are currently serving life in prison without parole. Several Supreme Court decisions have stated that children have some level of diminished mental capacity as compared to adults. In 2012 the Supreme Court held that a mandatory sentencing of juvenile offenders to life in prison without parole was unconstitutional. In 2014 the Court held that sentencing courts across the country must take into account specific factors relevant to a criminal’s status as a juvenile. The Court, in People v. Gutierrez, restated that teenagers are still developing mentally when it comes to understanding and being held to answer for their level of culpability. The Court has stated, “a juvenile is not absolved of responsibility for his actions, but his transgression is not as morally reprehensible as that of an adult.”
At Brownstone Law we are happy to see the states begin to recognize what the Supreme Court has been opining. Child criminals are not adults, and the juvenile justice system should not treat them as such.
- Photo Attribution is LA Times.
