A 17-year-old California gang member, Shanice Dyer, who was charged as a juvenile for a double murder committed five years ago, is now facing additional charges in connection with another murder. Dyer, a member of the East Coast Crips, was convicted of killing Alfredo Carrera and José Flores Velázquez in Los Angeles because they were standing in the gang’s territory. Despite being charged with premeditated murder and set to be tried as an adult under former Los Angeles County District Attorney Jackie Lacey, she was later charged as a juvenile and released after less than four years in custody.
Dyer is now accused of aiding and abetting in the murder of 21-year-old Joshua Streeter. While expressing condolences for the victim and his family, a spokesperson for current district attorney George Gascón’s office stated that it was unlikely Dyer would have been transferred to the adult system, as under the law, there are factors that a juvenile court would consider in determining if she was amenable to remaining in the juvenile system. Of the five factors, only the circumstances and gravity of the offense weighed in favor of transfer to adult court, while others, such as Dyer being under the influence of adult men, lack of serious criminal history, and opportunities for rehabilitation in the juvenile system, weighed in favor of staying in the juvenile system.
The district attorney’s Juvenile Alternative Charging Evaluation Committee (JACE) was formed in March 2022 and has approved 23 transfer requests for motions to adult court, including cases that have gone to hearings before the juvenile court or are still in progress. This indicates a shift in policy towards charging certain juvenile offenders as adults in specific cases, despite the previous decision to charge Dyer as a juvenile for her previous crimes. The committee’s decisions are based on various factors, including the nature of the offense, the individual’s criminal history, and their potential for rehabilitation.
The case of Shanice Dyer raises questions about the justice system’s approach to juvenile offenders who have committed serious crimes. While some factors may suggest that certain individuals are more likely to benefit from rehabilitation in the juvenile system, the gravity of the offenses committed cannot be overlooked. With recent efforts to transfer more cases to adult court, there is a growing recognition of the need to consider the severity of the crimes and the impact on victims and their families in determining the appropriate legal outcome for juvenile offenders involved in violent acts.
The decision to charge Dyer as a juvenile for her involvement in a double murder and later arrest her in connection with another murder highlights the complexity of balancing rehabilitation with accountability in cases involving violent crimes. As the justice system evolves to address the needs of both victims and offenders, there is a growing emphasis on evaluating each case individually to determine the most appropriate legal response. While some cases may warrant leniency and opportunities for rehabilitation, others may require a more punitive approach to address the harm caused and protect the community from further violence. By examining the factors that influence these decisions, authorities can work towards a more balanced and effective system of juvenile justice that considers the needs of all stakeholders involved.
