A Jury of Their Peers : Santa Ana Teens Dispense Justice to Juvenile Offenders in Program Organizers Plan to Expand

Jose admitted he was smoking a marijuana cigarette when he was arrested. But the six jurors weighing his sentence didn’t like the youth’s offhand demeanor in court and the way he belittled his offense.

Noting that the 17-year-old had a history of marijuana and alcohol use, the jury threw the book at Jose, giving him 35 hours of community service, grounding him at home every other weekend and ordering him to attend school, get a job and stay away from drugs, drug pushers and gang members. They also ordered the teen to write an essay on “Why I Will Never Re-Offend.”

So it went Wednesday in Peer Court, an innovative program where teen-agers sit as jurors after school and dispense justice to juvenile offenders accused of lesser crimes.

“It is to show high school kids they are responsible for what they do and that it is not cool or acceptable to their peers to joy ride or trespass on school property or hit another student,” said Orange County Superior Court Judge James P. Gray, who has been presiding over Peer Court sessions at high schools in Santa Ana.

The program, which was started in December by Orange County’s Juvenile Court and Probation Department, resembles others that have been spreading throughout California and the nation since the concept originated in Texas in 1983.

While juvenile justice traditionally is administered confidentially in formal court proceedings conducted by adults, this alternative gives teen offenders a chance to speak to a jury of other youths and hear their opinions.

In Orange County, six sentencing sessions have been convened in Santa Ana high schools before student audiences. Wednesday’s hearing was at Santa Ana High School.

Chief Deputy Probation Officer Don Hallstrom said there are plans to expand the program to other Orange County school districts next fall with the help of a $94,000 grant from the state Office of Criminal Justice Planning. Ultimately, he said, the program is expected to expand countywide.

Advocates of the system say it provides positive peer pressure. Teen-age jurors decide guilt or innocence in the Orange County program. They decide what punishment--short of jail or fines--fits the offense of their contemporary after asking questions of the offender and his or her parents, who must agree to be present for the proceedings.

While the young offender waives the right to privacy in Peer Court, the minor is guaranteed that if he or she carries out the sentence during an informal probation, no formal charges will be filed and that the arrest record will be expunged upon turning 18, the program’s administrators said.

The teen-age juries aren’t softies, Gray said. “They ask very good questions and I believe they are recommending meaningful sanctions,” he said. “I believe it is bringing new life to the juvenile justice system.”

A major goal of the program is diversion, catching youths before they sink deeper into a criminal lifestyle. Another is to educate other teens about the court system and dissuade the jurors from committing the same offenses.

“We know full well some of the jurors have probably done the same things as the perpetrator, so we are showing them as well that it isn’t appropriate,” Gray said.

In Los Angeles County, which started a Teen Court two years ago, the program has shown great promise in reducing repeat offenses among juveniles who participate, said Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Jaime Corral.

Corral, who founded the program there, said the percentage of Teen Court participants who return to the juvenile justice system is less than 4%, compared to a 10% return rate for minor offenders who are sent to other diversion programs, such as counseling and community service, and a 30% return rate for similar offenders who are formally prosecuted.

At Wednesday’s hearing, Gray, who wore his black robe and carried a gavel, had no problem finding volunteers willing to be sworn in as jurors. He was greeted with a forest of raised arms. The main conditions, he said, were that jurors not attend the same school as defendants or know the youth they were sentencing.

“When you are up there you feel older, more mature,” said Nik Stanworth, 17, who had served on a jury before and was volunteering again Wednesday.

Some students were dubious about whether their decisions could turn around the lives of others. “Some people you may help and some don’t care,” said juror Karin Nakamura, 18.

In addition to Jose, the youths sentenced included Christopher, 16, who punched and kicked a schoolmate, and John, 15, who rode a motorized minibike without a helmet and drove recklessly through traffic to evade police officers.

“How fast can a minibike go?” one juror asked.

“25 miles an hour,” John replied.

“And you thought you had a chance to get away?” the juror asked incredulously.

Most often, however, the questions were serious and probing. The jurors wanted to know how the offenders were doing in school and at home.

“Did you disappoint your father?” a teen-age girl asked John, whose father sat next to him.

“Yes,” John admitted, promising never to do so again.

When the jurors recessed to deliberate, led by uniformed members of the school ROTC, who served as bailiffs, they received a list of potential sanctions.

Any kind of incarceration or fine is not an option under the guidelines of Peer Court, Gray said, although an offender can be ordered to pay restitution to a victim.

The offenders were assigned volunteer probation officers to report on their progress. They were told that if they failed to follow the conditions of their probation, they would be sent to Juvenile Court.

In each case Wednesday, the offender was required to return at the end of his six-month informal probation to serve on a Peer Court jury.

One of Wednesday’s jurors, Christopher, 17, was completing a condition of probation for stealing a bicycle. He served on the jury that sentenced Jose. Afterward he said: “It felt a lot better to be on the other side.”