Colorado § 19-2.5-101 - Legislative declaration.

§ 19-2.5-101. Legislative declaration.

(1) (a) The general assembly finds that the intent of this article 2.5 is to protect, restore, and improve the public safety by creating a system of juvenile justice that will appropriately sanction juveniles who violate the law and, in certain cases, will also provide the opportunity to bring together affected victims, the community, and juvenile offenders for restorative purposes.

(b) The general assembly further finds that, while holding paramount the public safety, the juvenile justice system must take into consideration the best interests of the juvenile, the victim, and the community in providing appropriate treatment to reduce the rate of recidivism in the juvenile justice system and to assist the juvenile in becoming a productive member of society.

(2) The general assembly finds that the public has the right to safe and secure homes and communities and that when a delinquent act occurs, safety and security is compromised; and the result is harm to the victim, the community, and the juvenile offender. The general assembly finds that the juvenile justice system should seek to repair such harm and that victims and communities should be provided with the opportunity to elect to participate actively in a restorative process that would hold the juvenile offender accountable for the offense.

Source: L. 2021: Entire article added with relocations, (SB 21-059), ch. 136, p. 557, § 2, effective October 1.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 19-2-102 (1) and (2) as it existed prior to 2021.

ANNOTATION

Law reviews. For note, "In re Gault and the Colorado Children's Code", see 44 Den. L. J. 644 (1967).

Annotator's note. The following annotations include cases decided under former provisions similar to this section.

Design of the Colorado Children's Code. The code was designed to benefit youthful offenders. C.C.C. v. Dist. Court, 188 Colo. 437, 535 P.2d 1117 (1975).

Construction of the Colorado Children's Code. The code should not be construed to diminish the rights of youthful offenders. C.C.C. v. Dist. Court, 188 Colo. 437, 535 P.2d 1117 (1975).

Procedural safeguards to curb administrative abuse. Procedural safeguards in article 2 were established to curb possible abuse inherent in informal administrative practices in an area involving both the parents' and the child's rights. P.F.M. v. Dist. Court, 184 Colo. 393, 520 P.2d 742 (1974).

The Colorado Children's Code requires balancing. Because the code is for the benefit and best interests of all Colorado's children, a balancing effect must take place. C.C.C. v. Dist. Court, 188 Colo. 437, 535 P.2d 1117 (1975).

There is a very fundamental difference between a criminal proceeding and a delinquency proceeding, and the clear legislative intent is that the handling of juvenile delinquents should be oriented towards rehabilitation and reformation, and not punishment as such, even though the actions of the child if committed by an adult would justify a criminal proceeding. People ex rel. Terrell v. Dist. Court, 164 Colo. 437, 435 P.2d 763 (1967).

But juvenile cases must accord due process. There is no constitutional requirement that proceedings in juvenile cases shall be conducted according to the criminal law, or that proceedings need take any particular form, so long as the essentials of due process and fair treatment are accorded. In re People in Interest of J.A.M., 174 Colo. 245, 483 P.2d 362 (1971).