National Perspective : JUSTICE : Law May Portend Tougher Punishment for Juveniles : Others might follow Massachusetts’ move to try some as adults.

In the late 1970s, responding to public outrage over a case in which a New York City teen-ager was sentenced to only five years in detention for two brutal subway murders, the state Legislature changed the way juveniles involved in violent crimes were treated.

In what soon became a booming national trend toward “man-sized punishment for man-sized crimes” over the next half decade, a host of states followed New York’s lead--California and Florida among them.

One holdout was Massachusetts, which had pioneered a “rehabilitative” approach to juvenile justice and saw no reason to join the crowd. Massachusetts maintained its longstanding focus on community-based treatment for youthful offenders and resisted having juveniles tried as adults.

But recently, in a move that many leading authorities on juvenile justice contend signals an ominous turn of events in the rapidly rekindling national debate over how society should handle violent juvenile offenders, the Massachusetts Legislature adopted a “get tough” measure that makes it easier for juveniles charged with murder to be prosecuted as adults.

Under the bill, which was signed into law last week by Gov. Michael S. Dukakis, youths 14 to 17 who are charged with first- or second-degree murder will automatically be required to have a hearing before a judge to determine whether they should be transferred to adult court. The burden of proof will rest with their defense--not with prosecutors, as is now the case.

What makes the new Massachusetts law so portentous to many juvenile justice specialists is that it comes at a time when violent crime by juveniles is on the rise and many states have begun re-examining their juvenile justice systems.

“Study after study has shown that these ‘get tough’ laws have no measurable deterrent effect on juvenile crime and that the bulk of kids waived to adult courts got lighter sentences than if they had remained in juvenile court,” said Barry Krisberg, president of the San Francisco-based National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

In New York, for example, only 4% of juveniles tried as adults under the stiffer provisions adopted in 1979 were given longer sentences than they would have gotten in juvenile courts, according to a State University of New York study.

Massachusetts, meanwhile, could boast of having some of the lowest rates of juvenile crime and recidivism in the nation as testimony to its outlook on treatment of juvenile lawbreakers. A recent study showed that only 23% of Massachusetts’ juvenile offenders were recommitted within three years, contrasted with 62% in California.

But Massachusetts has not remained untouched by the dramatic growth in violent crimes by juveniles that has afflicted much of the rest of the nation in recent years. Over the past decade, the number of juveniles in Massachusetts charged with murder has shot up from an average of three a year to 15 a year, for a 500% increase, much of it attributable to residents of drug-ridden inner-city neighborhoods.

Then, on Halloween night this year, an incident occurred that paved the way for the Legislature’s recent action.

In a case that has drawn comparisons to last year’s “wilding” attack on a female jogger in New York’s Central Park, a 26-year-old black woman, Kimberly Rae Harbour, was savagely beaten, raped and murdered in Boston’s Dorchester neighborhood.

Eight youths, ages 15 to 19, were charged in the crime, but five are legally considered juveniles.

Legislators and lobbyists, including many parents whose children have been murdered by juveniles, hailed the bill.

But critics contend that it represents an ominous step backward for Massachusetts.

Della Hughes, who is executive director of the National Network of Runaway and Youth Services and co-chairs the Ad Hoc Coalition on Juvenile Justice, says Massachusetts has adopted the “quick-fix, simple-solution approach” that the nation increasingly is taking toward the whole array of mounting social problems.

“Instead of addressing the root causes, like poverty and poor housing and lack of education, we say: ‘Let’s lock them up,’ ” she said.

Gwendolyn Holden, executive vice president of the National Criminal Justice Assn., sees the Massachusetts bill as another in the increasing number of signs--including the growing favor with which big-city mayors are looking upon curfews as a means of curbing juvenile crime--that “get tough” policies still have appeal, as they did in the early ‘80s.

“I would say this issue is on the verge of a second coming,” she said.