Santa Clara county supervisors pass new policy barring young children from juvenile lock-up

Source: San Jose Mercury News

Declaring juvenile hall no place for the very young, Santa Clara County supervisors voted unanimously Tuesday on a groundbreaking policy that limits admission to children age 13 and older.

Experts in detention practices say they believe the new policy establishing a minimum age limit is virtually unprecedented nationwide.

And local youth advocates praised the board's action, despite initial reluctance from some supervisors who worried whether young murderers would be set free.

Those concerns were addressed by the county probation chief, who emphasized that the final say over where arrested minors should be housed continues to rest with the juvenile court.

Read more: http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_15063807

few children who might be very troubled, possibly dangerous but who are under 13?

At home? A lot of them don't have homes. My bet is foster care, which in many cases will make things even worse. I don't think we should be locking up kids without a good reason... When it's necessary though, it's necessary.

We can be certain these concerned citizens will not be providing the cost of living expenses to these children or their legal guardians. A new federal program? Unlikely.

"Champion added that the new policy will require a "culture shift that would have us all view these children as ill and needing help.""

Many of them are ill and in need of help, I don't think anyone could deny that. Nonetheless, we lack the institutions necessary to adequately support or treat them. I'm no fan of juvenile hall, but it does serve a purpose, particularly in extreme cases. Small treatment centers, intensive foster care, home based supervision - these things are suggested in the article. I believe that what they fail to realize is that for many of these children their home (if they have one) is not an area where they are likely to be supervised. The foster care system is failing on many levels and the small treatment centers are generally not well equipped to treat the very violent.

An alternative to juvenile hall would be great, but only provided that it would be a safer, or at least a smarter one.

That's the same place that teens who are that troubled should be but they'll be at juvenile hall.

Most California counties have behavioral health centers available to them for this sort of thing. Sometimes it's just a psych ward at a local hospital, but in many counties (including mine) complete facilities exist for the forced detainment and treatment of people with severe but temporary behavioral or mental health issues. It's still forced detainment in secure facilities, but you're being looked after by doctors and orderlies instead of jail guards.

For very young children, criminal activities are typically the result of a correctable behavioral problem. Placing them in a mental health facility is the better option.

I know about the one in San Bernardino County. It's pretty good as I understand. I have a friend who works not in that center, but in that field.

I am interested in this because I used to visit children in Juvenile Hall and saw some of the very young ones. They do not belong in Juvenile Hall. I'm really happy to read that Santa Clara County is leading the way on this.

under 13...6 to 12 year olds. Abandoned by their parents or abused by their parents. There are other places for kids too violent to deal with. You have to know how to restrain them. And watch them like a hawk.

:sarcasm:

Supervisor Liz Kniss expressed concerns Tuesday before casting her "aye" vote, referencing a high school classmate of her children's who "committed a really despicable crime." If juvenile hall were not an option, "I don't know what else you would have done with him," Kniss said.

Um, Liz, the policy only applies to those under 13. How many high school students do you know who are under 13? :dunce: And to think, her district includes Stanford!