Court should overturn unjust proposition

EDITORIAL BOARD Christine Byrd
 Editor in Chief

Michael Litschi
 Managing Editor

Jonah Lalas
 Viewpoint Editor

Barbara Ortutay
 News Editor

Amy Golod
 Staff Representative

Timothy Kudo
 Staff Representative

Brian O’Camb
 Staff Representative

  Unsigned editorials represent a majority opinion of
the Daily Bruin Editorial Board. All other columns, letters and
artwork represent the opinions of their authors.   All
submitted material must bear the author’s name, address, telephone
number, registration number, or affiliation with UCLA. Names will
not be withheld except in extreme cases.   The Bruin
complies with the Communication Board’s policy prohibiting the
publication of articles that perpetuate derogatory cultural or
ethnic stereotypes.   When multiple authors submit
material, some names may be kept on file rather than published with
the material. The Bruin reserves the right to edit submitted
material and to determine its placement in the paper. All
submissions become the property of The Bruin. The Communications
Board has a media grievance procedure for resolving complaints
against any of its publications. For a copy of the complete
procedure, contact the Publications office at 118 Kerckhoff Hall.
Daily Bruin 118 Kerckhoff Hall 308 Westwood Plaza Los Angeles, CA
90024 (310) 825-9898

Teenagers must love living in California, a state that treats
them as adults ““ not by empowering them, but by incarcerating
them.

Last spring, Proposition 21 lowered the age at which teens can
be tried as adults to 14 and allowed prosecutors, instead of
judges, to make this decision.

A California Court of Appeals, however, decided last week that a
portion of Proposition 21 violates the constitutional rights of
juveniles. Specifically, the judges stated that the law grants
prosecutors too much judicial power ““ something inconsistent
with state and federal separation of powers doctrines.

Obviously it’s unjust to allow prosecutors to decide
whether a teen should be tried as an adult. After all, many
prosecutors consider it their job to punish people to the fullest
extent. This, coupled with the fact that prosecutors are constantly
under public scrutiny to get convictions (especially elected
district attorneys), makes the system biased against juveniles.

But even after removing this section of Proposition 21, major
problems remain. For example, juveniles can still receive harsher
punishment for “gang-related” offenses and
misdemeanors. The law defines “gang” as a group of
three or more people with similar petty factors such as clothing,
race or ethnicity. This grants police officers leeway for racial
profiling, abuse of minorities, and even allows them to wiretap
suspected “gang members.” But there is a way to help
correct this problem.

Proposition 21 and its counterproductive approach to crime
should be entirely overturned.

Declaring a proposition unconstitutional has been done before.
For example, Proposition 187 ““ a California measure denying
social services like education to undocumented immigrants ““
was declared unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court.

It is now time for the courts and the people to reexamine
Proposition 21. The law has already had tremendous effect,
increasing the number of teens tried as adults by 25 percent in Los
Angeles County alone, many of them from minority communities.
Criminalizing more young people does not indicate social progress,
nor does it ensure a decrease in crime. Instead of propositions
like this, we need propositions providing resources for education
and after school programs for young people.

The proposition’s passage indicates our society’s
obsession with punishment. Rather than focusing on prevention and
rehabilitation, we send our youth to prison under the misguided
notion that hiding the problem is better than attempting to solve
it. Offering teens rehabilitation services and counseling would
help them reestablish their lives and become more productive
members of their community.

Youths placed in an adult prison complex are also more
susceptible to violence, sexual abuse and suicide ““ this
“cruel and unusual punishment” is grounds enough to
declare Proposition 21 unconstitutional.

It’s pathetically ironic to think that while this
proposition has affected hundreds of teens from minority
communities, the only reason the constitutionality of this
proposition was challenged was because a handful of white teenagers
were charged with hate crimes for assaulting Mexican immigrants.
They were going to be charged as adults. Unlike many teens from
poor backgrounds, their parents had the money and influence to
challenge the proposition.

Declaring part of Proposition 21 unconstitutional, though a good
step forward, is not nearly enough to resolve the conflicts brought
forward by this illogical law. Instead of throwing our teens in
jail, we need to throw out this proposition.

Teens should be thinking about what college they want to attend,
not about what type of prison they could be placed in.