On March 17, Cristo Rey De La Salle High School student Derbing Gonzalez was walking to soccer practice with four of his teammates on 100th Ave in Oakland when they were set upon by an armed suspect who demanded Gonzalez’s Sprayground backpack. Gonzalez refused and, after a brief struggle, four shots rang out. Three of the bullets struck Gonzalez, killing him. According to a friend, his last words were “I’m going to die.” The alleged suspect was arrested. He is 16 years old.
Last August, San Francisco 49ers player Ricky Pearsall was shopping in San Francisco’s beleaguered Union Square shopping district when he was approached by an armed suspect, who demanded his watch. Pearsall attempted to fight off the suspect and was shot in the chest. Pearsall survived and has returned to play. The alleged suspect was arrested. He is 17 years old.
And last May, Monterey couple Curt and Shelley Chaffee were taking photographs in Golden Gate Park when they were approached by two armed suspects who demanded their camera. The Chaffee’s didn’t fight back but were still assaulted and robbed at gunpoint of their camera and cell phones. The juvenile suspects were located and arrested, but were out of custody two weeks later. They are 16 years old.
As of this writing, none have been transferred to adult court.
Since the passage of Prop 57 in 2016, the discretion to charge a juvenile between the ages of 16 and 18 has been taken away from prosecutors. Under SB 1391, passed in 2018, juveniles under the age of 16 can never be charged as adults. California’s judges have transferred juveniles to adult court jurisdiction just 12 times in 2023, 12 times in 2022, and 28 times in 2021.
Put another way, of the 318 murders committed by juveniles from 2021-2023, just 52 were tried as adults. Under current law there is no mechanism, other than the commitment of a new crime as an adult, to transfer a juvenile offender to adult court jurisdiction. Ever. As juvenile court jurisdiction ends at age 25, this means a 17 year old murderer tried as a juvenile will serve no more than 8 years. More on that later.
In 2022, the State closed the Department of Juvenile Justice, transferring responsibility for juvenile corrections and rehabilitation to California’s 58 counties. Each offers dramatically differing capacities to address the challenges of juvenile offenders, especially serious ones. And serious crimes are increasing.
Since 2021, juvenile violent crime has risen 70 percent. Murders are up 21 percent; weapons crimes are up 44 percent; assaults are up 70 percent; arsons increased 87 percent; burglaries are up 114 percent; and armed robberies are up 71 percent.
Perhaps the most shocking example of the failures of California’s juvenile justice system is the case of Adrian Gonzalez from Santa Cruz County who allegedly kidnapped, raped, and murdered 8-year old Maddy Middleton in July 2015.
At the time of his crime, Gonzalez was just 4 months shy of the 16 year old age threshold for potential transfer to adult jurisdiction.
Under the law as it existed in 2016, the Santa Cruz District Attorney’s Office had charged Gonzalez as an adult. However, the charge would be short-lived as Gonzalez became the beneficiary of California’s juvenile justice reforms when the State Supreme Court extended the benefit retroactively to all juveniles held in custody His case thus remained in the juvenile system and he was sentenced to the maximum term allowed, incarceration until his 25th birthday.
As his 25th birthday approached, Gonzalez petitioned for release. This was opposed by the Santa Cruz District Attorney’s office as the law allows for two-year recommitments to custody if an individual charged and sentenced as a juvenile has failed to rehabilitate while in custody and is a continuing danger to the public.
In the Gonzalez case, the judge agreed and a new trial commenced wherein evidence was presented that he was, in fact, still a danger. A jury ultimately agreed and Gonzalez was returned to custody.
This is certainly a relief for Maddy Middleton’s family as well as the Santa Cruz community. But it’s an experience the victim’s family and the community will endure every two years and if he is released, he will not be on probation or parole and will not have to register as a sex offender under Megan’s Law.
The Gonzalez case raises questions regarding the effectiveness of the state’s juvenile rehabilitation system. It is highly questionable whether a sexual sadist and murderer can be rehabilitated, even after nine years of custody and programs.
Should the state continue to define juvenile acts solely by age? What happens to someone who is 17 years, 364 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes, and 59 seconds old and commits an offense versus someone who does so as an 18 year old? In the eyes of the law, the difference is dramatic. But are the offenders?
Do the 58 counties have adequate resources and are there clinical psychological professionals available to treat these very specific types of offenders? Santa Cruz actually lacks the capacity to treat Gonzalez and contracts with Sonoma County for those services. Yet, one of the reasons the state closed the DJJ was to allow offenders to stay close to home based on the theory that offenders with nearby family “support” fare better post release. In the case of Adrian Gonzalez, his home life was proffered by his defense team as the cause of his dysfunctional behavior. How can it be both supportive and the cause?
Until these and more questions are answered, continuing on our present course leaves little doubt that violent crime will continue to rise.
Steve Smith is a senior fellow in urban studies at the Pacific Research Institute, focusing on California’s growing crime problem.
