Abstract
Introduction In response to high-profile juvenile crimes and a perceived fear of increasing youth offenses, in March 2000, California voters passed the Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Act of 1998. Also known as Proposition 21, the Act was intended to deter youth violence and ensure that serious juvenile offenders would receive serious punishments. 1 Plastered with images of children shooting other children at schools, the media imprinted terrifying incidents of youth violence in the consciousness of Californians. 2 Voters responded by enacting Proposition 21. Critics worried that Proposition 21 would dilute the juvenile justice system and ultimately harm juveniles and the rest of society. 3 Moreover, critics argued that the proposition would give prosecutors excessive authority to file charges against children in adult courts, 4 granting them "unfettered access in avoiding juvenile court." 5 They feared that automatic transfers and unilateral prosecutorial discretion would lead to arbitrary decisions made by prosecutors. 6 On the other hand, advocates of Proposition 21 depicted the Act as a tough-on-crime measure. 7 They asserted that juvenile crime had been on the rise over the last decade. 8 Proposition 21 was drafted specifically to decrease juvenile crime and penetrate criminal street gangs, which are often organized by juveniles. 9 Since Proposition 21 became effective, a number of petitioners have challenged its constitutionality. The California Courts of Appeal have split on the constitutionality of a provision granting prosecutors discretion to charge certain juveniles in adult courts. 10 The Supreme Court of California ...