The state of California is considered a national leader in progressive thought. Its policies routinely influence other states in the nation. You can see it on roadways in Maryland and Maine, where lawmakers have adopted California’s emissions law to stop the sale of gas-powered cars by 2035. It’s even apparent online: In 2022, when California passed the Age-Appropriate Design Code Act to better protect children virtually, New York state senators announced they would propose similar legislation just one week later.
The “California Effect,” the state’s ability to inspire progressive policy elsewhere in America, is very much real. But when it comes to civil rights in the arena of juvenile justice, California is not always a trendsetter. It remains among a minority of states that allow probation officers to use chemical weapons against incarcerated youth. While most of the country has phased out this outdated practice, California lags behind.
This is woefully apparent in Los Angeles County, where probation staff still use chemical spray as a control tactic against its incarcerated youth. The Los Angeles Daily News recently found chemical spray is used more than once a day, on average, in Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall, in Downey, California. This inhumane tactic is rare in America. The Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators notes California is one of only five states that allows probation staff to carry chemical spray on their person in juvenile facilities.
Why do most states ban chemical spray? It’s simple: its use causes more problems than they solve. First, chemical spray erodes the trust between young people and probation officers. When young people are incarcerated, they’re under the supervision and control of the probation department. When probation officers use chemical spray on them, young people immediately learn “you are not safe here.”
Instead, these weapons create a punitive, fear-inducing environment where young people feel attacked and their fight-or-flight response kicks in. Chemical spray exacerbates the emotional and physical harms that are already inherent in youth incarceration. As the saying goes, “you can’t get well in a cell” – and when young people are trapped in a cell while probation officers also spray them, it is only natural that they become further dysregulated. This fuels an endless cycle of distrust where incarcerated youth are declared “not fixable” and their successful reentry into society is undercut by the very same officers responsible for their “rehabilitation.”
And that’s just the psychological impact of chemical spray use on young people.
In 2018, the American Academy of Pediatrics stated chemical agents pose a unique physiological risk to children because they have smaller bodies, breathe faster and have a “limited cardiovascular stress response compared to adults.” There are kids in Los Angeles County juvenile halls with difficulties, like asthma, which we cannot see. Think about children who are not even probation officers’ intended targets who suffer just because chemical spray can waft from cell to cell without detection.
The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors already voted to stop using chemical spray in its juvenile halls in 2019. So, why are children still feeling its harmful effects five years later? Why is the Los Angeles County Probation Department allowed to openly defy existing county policies by continuing its use?
Frankly, public officials should wield more skepticism when making decisions about the staff and institutions they entrust to use these dangerous chemicals in the first place. Just last week, the Los Angeles Daily News also reported nearly 20 percent of shifts at Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall did not meet staffing minimums in July. Further, Stacy Ford, the president of the union that represents probation officers in that troubled facility, said “some of us cannot deal with these young people in the mental state we are in.”
So, if Los Angeles County probation officers are unwilling to come to work, and those that do are mentally exhausted by their own admission, how can local leaders continue to trust these officers with the custody of the county’s most marginalized youth, especially while carrying around and indiscriminately wielding canisters of pepper spray in the process?
Plenty of other counties in California are doing the right thing. Seven California counties already ban the use of chemical spray in their juvenile facilities. However, Los Angeles County, the most populous county in the state by far, has yet to implement a ban. It’s disappointing when one hears L.A. officials claim that they are taking a health-based approach to juvenile justice while simultaneously turning a blind eye to the use of chemical weapons on young people. The harmful nature of chemical spray makes its use counterproductive to the juvenile justice system’s rehabilitative goals and is the antithesis of a health-based approach.
People across the country like to think California is a unique place where the state’s progressivism ensures a respect for the civil rights of all individuals. It can be, but only if we address all our shortcomings, especially in the state’s largest county.
The California Board of State and Community Corrections can do just that this year when its members promulgate standards for juvenile facilities. The board should once and for all remove chemical spray from our juvenile halls. In the interim, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors should make good on their promises of five years ago by finally requiring the probation department to comply with the county’s ban on chemical weapons inside juvenile facilities.
A common refrain against this common-sense reform is, “what is the alternative?” The good news for California is that we don’t need to reinvent the wheel; most of the country and seven of our own counties have paved this road for us and there is no dearth of examples for implementation.
It’s time for California to follow other states’ lead.
