Two 2026 bills—Assembly Bill 1902 by Asm. Gail Pellerin (D-Santa Cruz) and the failed “Lorenso’s Law” (AB 2040) by Asm. Alexandra Macedo (R-Tulare)—show how lawmakers are grasping for answers.
But the most glaring flaws run deeper. The system’s rigid age cutoff means some offenders—many who are adults by the time of prosecution—can’t be held fully accountable for the gravest crimes. When dangerous offenders age out of juvenile custody (unless they are prosecuted as adults), they are released without parole, supervision, or sex offender registration. These outcomes are dictated by an arbitrary age line, not by the seriousness of the offense.
This isn’t just about a few high-profile cases. In 2023, juvenile arrests in California jumped 70% from 2021, and homicides have soared 82% since 2019. In 2024, there were 124 juvenile homicide arrests and 471 homicide referrals—155 involving defendants aged 21 to 25. Serious youth crime is surging statewide.
AB 1902, drafted in response to the Adrian Gonzalez case in Santa Cruz County, would let judges and juries extend detention for dangerous juveniles up to four years and expand placements to state mental hospitals. But AB 1902 is just a post-conviction patch—it does nothing to address what happens when these offenders turn 25 and are released with no supervision or registration requirements.
In contrast, AB 2040—defeated by one vote—would have made it easier to move the most serious juvenile cases, like murder and rape, to adult court. In 2024, only 24 hearings were held for adult transfer out of 7,000 violent juvenile felony arrests. Supporters wanted accountability; critics worried about rehabilitation.
California law assesses offenders by their age at the time of the crime, not at prosecution—dangerously shortening the window for rehabilitation when cases take years to resolve.
Most remain in juvenile court—even as adults—on the idea that virtually all can be rehabilitated by age 25. But it is not grounded in reality, and it is dangerous to assume that older “juveniles,” sometimes charged with murder or rape, will be reformed just because they hit this arbitrary milestone.
The 2023 closure of California’s Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), once hailed as a victory for reform, was justified by claims that youth would do better closer to home and away from the troubled California Youth Authority. Budget pressures, CYA missteps, high recidivism, and a belief that juveniles underdeveloped impulse control were all part of the problem sped the shutdown. Today, most county facilities are designed for short-term stays, not long-term rehabilitation of high-risk youth, in addition to lacking qualified clinicians, juveniles are shuttled around the state to any regional treatment center willing to take them, undermining the very rationale for DJJ’s closure.
Santa Cruz County’s history of youthful killers shows the dangers. In 1964, Edmund Kemper murdered his grandparents at 15, was released at 21, and went on to allegedly kill eight more. In 1985, Donald Schmidt, convicted at 16 for rape and murder, was released at 33 with no post-release monitoring. In 2015, Adrian Gonzalez, just shy of 16 when he allegedly killed 8-year-old Maddy Middleton, is now 25. He now can only be held for two-year therapeutic extensions—and if released, he’ll face no supervision or registration. These cases show the tragic cost of policies that favor leniency over accountability for the truly dangerous.
The defeat of AB 2040 shows Sacramento’s misplaced priorities: post-conviction tweaks over real accountability and prevention. The result? The most dangerous juvenile offenders remain in a broken juvenile system.
The legal line between juvenile and adult—sometimes just days apart—raises hard questions about fairness, safety, and whether counties can offer real rehabilitation for the most dangerous youth.
If the system doesn’t change, California will likely see more cycles of violence and failed policy.
Potential Solutions
California needs a comprehensive response. The state should focus on coordinated reforms, not piecemeal fixes.
First, age thresholds for prosecuting serious crimes must be reevaluated, as rigid cutoffs often ignore the severity of offenses or the offender’s true maturity. Restoring judicial discretion for adult court transfers is key—judges need the ability to decide case by case, especially with violent or sexual crimes. Standardizing resources for high-risk youth across counties would reduce disparities and improve outcomes statewide. Mandatory post-release supervision for those convicted of violent or sexual offenses is also essential to protect public safety. California should also expand evidence-based programs that address root causes such as family dysfunction and substance abuse, while strengthening protective factors like strong parental involvement, positive peer relationships, kindness, good decision-making, and staying engaged in school. Standardizing resources for high-risk youth across counties would reduce disparities and improve outcomes statewide. These supports can buffer risk and promote positive youth development.
Real reform means linking accountability to the crime, moving beyond age-based assumptions, and putting public safety first.
At the end of the day, we have to ask: what is the priority—victim safety, or suspect rights? Only by answering that honestly can California end this cycle of tragedy and make its system worthy of public trust.
Steve Smith is a senior fellow in urban studies at the Pacific Research Institute.