Overhaul for Juvenile Crime Network : Under Assembly bill, many agencies would join in a review of the overwhelmed system

That crime committed by teen-agers and young adults has escalated sharply in recent years--and has become dramatically more violent--is a given. Nationally and in California, the arrest rate of teen-agers for murder more than doubled from 1982 to 1992. In some areas, juvenile homicides increased as much as fivefold. More than 1,000 young murderers are now housed in California Youth Authority institutions.

But perhaps less obvious is that the social and criminal justice agencies created to handle juveniles are now overwhelmed with serious crimes. Authorities once responded to truancy and promiscuity because they considered such relatively minor problems as harbingers of much more serious youthful delinquency; now these authorities must increasingly focus their scarce resources on a growing number of violent felons. Those who commit misdemeanors or troubled boys and girls simply “at risk” of crime or dropping out of school can fall through the cracks.

In the face of all this, overhaul of what has become a rather antiquated and increasingly inadequate patchwork of juvenile laws and agencies is called for. Several other states, including New York, Arizona and Colorado, have embarked on such efforts. California too should do so--and quickly.

AB 2428, introduced by Assemblyman Bob Epple (D-Cerritos), would create a task force to review juvenile crime and the response of state and local agencies responsible for juvenile offenders. The task force would bring in all the relevant agencies; representatives would be sent by sheriffs, police departments, probation officials, district attorneys, social services, schools, juvenile courts, youth authorities, the attorney general and defense attorneys.

The task force’s goal would be to review all aspects of juvenile law, and the panel would ask which laws and practices should be changed and which should be retained.

For example, should young murderers receive tougher sentences than they now do? Under what circumstances should confidentiality of juvenile records be maintained? For which crimes? Which programs, in California or other states, have proven most successful in reducing juvenile recidivism?

The commission should provide the Legislature with a coherent agenda for reform. Epple’s bill has already passed the Assembly and faces a Senate committee test this week. There is no organized opposition to this modest but constructive proposal. It’s certainly worth a try.