skip navigation


Abstract Database

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

To download this abstract, check the box next to the NCJ number then click the "Back To Search Results" link. Then, click the "Download" button on the Search Results page. Also see the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 212144 Find in a Library
Title: Juvenile Justice and the Punishment of Recidivists Under California's Three Strikes Law
Journal: California Law Review  Volume:90  Issue:4  Dated:2002  Pages:1157-1202
Author(s): Amanda K. Packel
Date Published: 2002
Page Count: 46
Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This paper identifies contradictions in the California Supreme Court's interpretation of the juvenile adjudication provision of the State's Three Strikes Law.
Abstract: The passage of California's Three Strikes law in 1994 has fostered debate over the fairness of using prior offenses as the basis for imposing harsh mandatory punishments. The application of such mandatory sanctions is particularly controversial when juvenile adjudications are included as "strikes." The California Supreme Court has twice addressed the Three Strikes provision that defines the scope of juvenile adjudications as strikes. In People v. Davis (1997), the court ignored traditional canons of statutory construction in expanding the number of juvenile adjudications that can count as strikes. In People v. Garcia (1999), on the other hand, the court used methods of reasoning and statutory construction that contradicted the framework used in "Davis," but without acknowledging that it was in effect overruling "Davis." The California Supreme Court should expressly overrule "Davis," including its methods of statutory interpretation and its broadening of the scope of juvenile adjudications that qualify as strikes. Further, trial and appellate courts in the State should dismiss prior juvenile adjudication strikes and set a clear interpretation of the Three Strikes law that resolves the conflict created by its application to juvenile adjudications. This paper also suggests other ways that juvenile court judges, criminal court judges, and legislators can reduce the conflict between the juvenile justice and the criminal justice system created by California's Three Strikes law. 249 notes
Main Term(s): Juvenile recidivists
Index Term(s): California; State laws; State supreme courts; Three Strikes Laws
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.