The Hidden Dangers in Proposition 21

I spent the week talking to a few impassioned people who want to warn us about an evil spirit behind one of the propositions on the March ballot.

The initiative has a lucky-sounding number--21. And it has a neutral name--”Juvenile Crime.”

But a few activists in Orange County say it’s a sinister proposal that would have an unfortunate impact on our youth, especially young people of color.

If this law passes, they argue, more teenagers than ever before will be going to prison at younger ages. Some offenders as young as 16 will be tossed in with the adult criminal population without the benefit of treatment and education now provided in the juvenile justice system.

“What will these young people learn in state prison--how to be better criminals?” ask opponents who signed the official argument against Proposition 21.

By the way, these opponents aren’t bleeding-heart, leftist radicals. They are the heads of the state PTA, the League of Women Voters and the association of chief probation officers.

Locally, I found only a few people who knew or cared about this 45-page law that would overhaul our juvenile justice system. Even Latino community activists who usually get fired up about such things are unaware of its provisions, which stiffen punishment for young offenders and strip them of some opportunities to reform themselves.

One particularly troubling part of the initiative gives authority to prosecutors to decide in various cases whether juveniles should be transferred to adult court, stripping the juvenile courts of that discretion.

That means many juveniles could go straight to adult court just on the say-so of the D.A., without the benefit of a balanced hearing before an impartial judge.

If D.A.s decide they have a better chance to get a longer sentence in adult court by avoiding a softhearted juvenile judge, where do you think they’ll take their case?

No wonder prosecutors are pushing for passage of this proposition. It gives them the chance to do end runs around the juvenile bench. Lord knows, the system allows enough mistakes already without giving the state greater rein in seeking tougher punishment for people.

The Downside

The idea of making it easier to send teenagers to adult prison didn’t seem to sit too well with the legislative analyst either. The analyst’s official review points out that Proposition 21 requires that any juvenile over age 16 who is convicted in adult court must be sent to state prison rather than a juvenile facility. Current law prohibits housing juveniles with adult inmates.

“A number of research studies indicate that juveniles who receive an adult court sanction tend to commit more crimes and return to prison more often than juveniles who are sent to juvenile facilities,” the analyst states.

(For the complete analysis on the Web: https://www.ss.ca.gov/vote2000/VoterGuide/Propositions/21analysis.htm)

Proposition 21 got on my radar screen because I kept receiving e-mail advisories urging people to organize against it. They were signed by somebody I had never heard of, Mimi Sanchez-Quesada.

She’s a Santa Ana native, one of nine children whose father was a cement finisher. By day, Sanchez is a mild-mannered accountant with an Irvine electronics firm. In her activist life, she becomes a self-described “female warrior.”

Sanchez sees Proposition 21 as one in a series of recent initiatives that are toxic to the Latino community--those against bilingual education, affirmative action and public benefits for undocumented immigrants.

“Now, they’re coming after our children,” said Sanchez, member of the Orange County Central Committee of the Green Party and a volunteer with Californians for Justice, an L.A.-based group also fighting Proposition 21.

Evidence suggests kids of color will be especially vulnerable to the sharper teeth in Proposition 21. A new study entitled “Color of Justice,” co-authored by former UCI professor Mike Males, found that 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.

Over lunch at a Japanese restaurant, she told me her fighting spirit was aroused by Proposition 187, the anti-illegal-immigrant measure. Her mother became a citizen in the wake of that divisive debate, and she plans to vote for the first time in March, as a Democrat.

The evil spirit behind Proposition 21, critics say, is the ghost of Pete Wilson, the former Republican governor who fomented anti-Mexican hysteria in the state. They see the initiative as a recycled version of a crime bill pushed under the Wilson administration.

Legal scholars attack the initiative for its shotgun approach to the juvenile crime problem. It’s a mishmash of get-tough policies: allowing the death penalty for gang-related murder; making gang recruitment a crime; calling for life in prison for gang members convicted of home invasion robberies, carjacking, witness intimidation or drive-by shootings.

Even critics say they don’t oppose strict punishment for serious gang crimes, though they argue that current law cracks down hard enough. But this proposition comes as a package, a Pandora’s box of good and bad ideas.

Sanchez handed me a flier across our lunch table that spotlights two of the bad ones: Proposition 21 lowers the dollar amount of damage required for felony vandalism from $50,000 to $400 and allows wiretapping of suspected gang members.

“Make no mistake--the term ‘suspected gang member’ is code for young people of color,” states the flier.

Even opponents concede the measure will probably pass. The public has never turned down a hard-line crime measure once it qualified for a general election, wrote UC Berkeley law professor Franklin E. Zimring in a recent oped piece.

People see these measures as symbolic acts, wrote Zimring, choosing sides between victims and offenders regardless of the legal merits.

“To stand up for juveniles is really not a very popular thing to do,” said Jeff Pilch, another Green Party member and Proposition 21 opponent. “The key is those Latino politicians. Are they going to stand up and do the right thing? Or are they going to pander to the right?”

Proposition 21 has the support of both Latino candidates, a Democrat and a Republican, running for state Assembly in the heavily Latino 69th District that covers Santa Ana and Anaheim.

Lou Lopez, a veteran Anaheim cop and sole GOP challenger, said he supports the sweeping crime initiative. He just hasn’t read it.

Odd. You’d expect candidates to be familiar with measures they share the ballot with. Especially Lopez, a former city councilman and former school board president.

“There are so many propositions, you can’t keep up with all of them,” Lopez told me. “And then you gotta read the fine print.”

Yeah. Legislating can be hard work.

But at least incumbent Lou Correa, the Democrat, was familiar with the initiative’s provisions. He says he supports it because Latinos are often the victims of gang crime.

“This Prop. 21 is brutal,” said Correa. “It’s nasty. But you’ve got to think about that little Latino or Latina who’s afraid to go out on the street because they’re going to get whacked.

“Basta! Enough is enough.”

Agustin Gurza’s column appears Tuesday and Saturday. Readers can reach Gurza at (714) 966-7712 or agustin.gurza@latimes.com.