California’s Juvenile Justice ‘Reforms’ Created This Chaos

A viral video of juveniles beating and robbing a man at Fisherman’s Wharf has reignited debate over San Francisco’s approach to youth crime—and the cascade of state and local policies that critics say have stripped accountability from the system entirely.

The Fisherman’s Wharf Attack: A Pattern, Not an Incident

Archived tweet

This kids on bicycles we’re doing Willie‘s up and down the street trying to rage bait people by riding by them super close in swerving and they rage baited this one man that confronted him and start calling him slurs did they commit to assault him and robbing him? But crime is down (Per) Mayor Lurie [Quoting @bett_yu]: Man beaten, robbed by group of juveniles at SF’s Fisherman’s Wharf San Francisco Police Department officers were sent just before 2:50 p.m. Saturday to the 900 block of Beach Street, near San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park, after receiving reports that "multiple juveniles had battered and robbed a victim," the department told @KTVU https://t.co/F9jm3pGfid

jj smith @war24182236 January 19, 2026

The attack followed a now-familiar pattern: kids on bikes “rage baiting” pedestrians—riding close, swerving, using slurs—then assaulting whoever pushed back. This wasn’t random chaos. It was calculated.

And it’s not isolated. As contributor Liz4SF points out, these same groups are escalating: “Gang-affiliation and recruitment is rising bc of our lax juvenile laws; the mass shooting at ocean beach recently involved predominately teens.” Five people were shot at Ocean Beach—four were juveniles. A Burton High student was shot on campus in December 2025. This is what “restorative justice” looks like in practice.

How California Gutted Juvenile Accountability

Archived tweet

When you elect policymakers with zero policymaking experience & let low-information voters decide on criminal law via props... this is what you get.. "Under current law, San Francisco juveniles arrested for firearms or violence fall mostly under the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Justice Center (JJC). There, staff, not police or prosecutors, decide whether the offender is released to parents, sent to a nonprofit shelter such as Huckleberry House, or held briefly in a locked JJC facility. Proposition 57 (passed in 2015) and subsequent reforms stripped prosecutors of direct transfer authority to adult courts, leaving the final decision to judges. In 2017, SB 190 prohibited counties from charging families for costs related to juvenile justice processes, which averaged $23,000 per youth. While this reduced financial burdens on families it also disincentivized families from providing more structure and accountability for their kids because of the shared responsibility that youth crime fines had on the entire family. And SB 81, passed in 2021, specifically tells judges to dismiss gang enhancements, prior-strike enhancements, and most other add-ons unless the prosecutor can prove that dismissal would “endanger public safety.”" https://t.co/HMMWJ7EkLY

Liz4SF @incitafusio January 19, 2026

The thread continues with a devastating breakdown: Prop 57 (2015) stripped prosecutors of direct transfer authority to adult courts for serious juvenile offenders—now judges decide. SB 190 (2017) prohibited charging families for juvenile justice costs, which averaged $23,000 per youth. While framed as reducing financial burdens, it also removed families’ financial stake in their kids’ behavior.

Then came SB 81 in 2021, which specifically directs judges to dismiss gang enhancements and prior-strike enhancements unless prosecutors can prove dismissal would “endanger public safety.” Think about that: the burden is on prosecutors to prove that not enhancing a gang member’s sentence is dangerous. The default is leniency.

Under current law, SF juveniles arrested for firearms or violence go to the Juvenile Justice Center, where staff—not police or prosecutors—decide whether to release them to parents, send them to a nonprofit shelter, or briefly hold them. Zero consequences, escalating violence.

SFUSD’s Security Meltdown

In 2020, the now-recalled Board of Education severed the MOU with SFPD, removing armed Security Resource Officers from every campus. Principal Mike Jones of Lowell said at a town hall: “This is the first district in my career that hasn’t had SROs. It makes me uncomfortable not having police on campus. It’s very challenging getting the police on campus, sometimes it takes two or three calls to get a response.”

At Galileo High, a 16-year-old student was shot by gang-affiliated teens trying to recruit him. When his mother went to police, she was told under the previous administration that “nothing could be done.” And now SFUSD is cutting security staff by 50% while its deficit balloons past $113 million.

Families Are Voting With Their Feet

The consequences are measurable: nearly one-third of SF students now attend private schools—10 to 20 percentage points above national, state, and regional averages. At Washington High alone, at least three teens have transferred due to bullying and threats.

The new SFPD administration is investigating—but youth laws are handcuffing officers’ ability to incarcerate even when they catch perpetrators. Captain Kevin Lee of SFPD Richmond station told The Voice of SF: “Be proactive, get involved, know what they do online, and get the police involved. Don’t feel awkward about calling the police, especially if your case is strong; we will do something about it.”

San Francisco voters recalled the school board members who severed police ties and the DA who refused to prosecute. Now they need to hold state legislators accountable for the juvenile justice “reforms” that made these streets—and schools—unsafe for everyone.