(a) As a result of multiple scientific studies on the neurological development of children and young adults, and a shift in public opinion, the Legislature has, over recent years, approved several pieces of legislation, signed into law, that have significantly altered the juvenile justice system in California. The central focus is now rehabilitation and the best interest of the youth. For example, Senate Bill 823 (2020) stated: “It is the intent of the Legislature and the administration for counties to use evidence-based and promising practices and programs that improve the outcomes of youth and public safety, reduce the transfer of youth into the adult criminal justice system, ensure that dispositions are in the least restrictive appropriate environment, reduce and then eliminate racial and ethnic disparities, and reduce the use of confinement in the juvenile justice system by utilizing community-based responses and interventions.”
(b) Further, Senate Bill 395 (2017) stated: “Developmental and neurological science concludes that the process of cognitive brain development continues into adulthood, and that the human brain undergoes “dynamic changes throughout adolescence and well into young adulthood” 1
(see Richard J. Bonnie, et al., Reforming Juvenile Justice: A Developmental Approach, National Research Council (2013), page 96, and Chapter 4). As recognized by the United States Supreme Court, children “‘generally are less mature and responsible than adults’” (J.D.B. v. North Carolina (2011) 131 S.Ct. 2394, 2397, quoting Eddings v. Oklahoma (1982) 455 U.S. 104, 115); “they ‘often lack the experience, perspective, and judgment to recognize and avoid choices that could be detrimental to them’” (J.D.B., 131 S.Ct. at 2397, quoting Bellotti v. Baird (1979) 443 U.S. 622, 635); “they ‘are more vulnerable or susceptible to… outside pressures’ than adults” (J.D.B., 131 S.Ct. at 2397, quoting Roper v. Simmons (2005) 543 U.S. 551, 569); they “have limited understandings of the criminal justice system and the roles of the institutional actors within it” (Graham v. Florida (2010) 560 U.S. 48, 78); and “children characteristically lack the capacity to exercise mature judgment and possess only an incomplete ability to understand the world around them” (J.D.B., 131 S.Ct. at 2397).”
(c) As a result of the above legislation, and pursuant to section 202 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code, juvenile courts and other public agencies charged with enforcing, interpreting, and administering the juvenile court law shall consider the safety and protection of the public, the importance of redressing injuries to victims, and the best interests of the minors in all deliberations. Minors under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court shall receive care, treatment, and guidance consistent with their best interests and the best interests of the public. Further, all punishment must be consistent with a rehabilitative objective.
(d) The people of the City and County of San Francisco every four years elect a district attorney, who has the duty to prosecute those who commit crimes and do harm to people and property in San Francisco. Through this democratic process, the district attorney is selected, based not only on candidates’ respective legal credentials but also on their respective values and visions for the criminal justice system, including the juvenile justice system. This ordinance intends to validate the sovereignty of San Francisco voters in their selection of the district attorney and to ensure that, barring preemption by state or federal law, the district attorney (including deputies acting on behalf of the district attorney) is the only one who should make the decision of where and when to prosecute juveniles who have committed crimes in San Francisco.
(Added by Ord. 154-21, File No. 210494, App. 10/8/2021, Eff. 11/8/2021)
CODIFICATION NOTE