Teens Are Judged by a Jury of Their Peers

By name alone, it sounds like the title of the latest kid-targeted TV series: Teen Court.

But in a dry run Wednesday, the teen-age jurors, lawyers and court officials of Ventura County’s new Teen Court showed how hard justice will fall on juvenile offenders who agree to be judged by their peers.

A boy playing the role of someone accused of blowing up a bathroom stall with fireworks was sentenced to perform 24 hours of community service, pay $20.97 for repairs, write an apology to the school district, take a class on explosives safety and return at least twice to serve in the Teen Court experiment.

Next week, Teen Court will convene in earnest at Oxnard High School on Wednesday, with young offenders guarded by teen bailiffs, charged by teen prosecutors, defended by teen attorneys and judged by teen juries.

Sealed from the public eye and as serious as any adult court in meting out justice, Teen Court is meant to cut down on recidivism and teach a civics lesson to kids who take part, Juvenile Court Judge Steven Z. Perren said.

And if it works, he said, Teen Courts could be set up in several more schools around the county, starting next semester with Newbury Park High.

*

“The idea is that the minor may wish to have his own peers decide what’s an appropriate sanction,” said Perren, who helped launch the Teen Court program. “But the theory is that it’s really as much for the benefit of the kids who participate in the process as for those being sentenced.”

Not every young offender is eligible: Only those with minor offenses, few or no prior crimes, and their parents’ approval can take part, Perren said.

Teen juries will decide only on punishment for admitted offenders, not on innocence or guilt of suspects, said Chris Weidenheimer, county probation officer. The touchier question of guilt is better left for an adult court with trained attorneys who can ensure that teens’ constitutional rights are being guarded, she said.

And teen jurors cannot put young defendants behind bars. They can only sentence them to community service, fines or time working in Teen Court.

Teen Court is new to Ventura County, but similar programs are already running in Santa Barbara and seven Los Angeles County schools.

*

The 3-year-old Teen Court at Woodrow Wilson High School teaches kids accountability and may be keeping at-risk kids from committing new crimes, said Phil Egans, deputy Los Angeles County probation officer.

While that Teen Court’s 14 cases a month barely dent the massive Los Angeles County caseload, the active involvement of the kids’ families--who sit in and sometimes testify--may be helping deter kids from crime, Egans said.

“We’re trying to target the kid that’s getting ready to come into the system, and to keep them out of the system and hold that young man or lady accountable for what they did,” he said.

Kids may hand down harsher sentences than adults, he said, “but I’ve also found that kids are very fair. They go right to the meat of the problem and they deal with it. If they sense that there’s a problem at home, they’ll address that, and if kids need tutoring after school, they’ll address that too. . . . Kids are pretty adept at coming up with good decisions.”

In Ventura County’s Teen Court, as in the other Teen Courts already running, adult attorneys will volunteer as judges to ensure that the hearings--and penalties--are fair, Perren said.

*

But while kids will be kids--sometimes over-blowing their courtroom histrionics to make a point--they do take their work seriously, as Wednesday’s rehearsal showed.

Teen prosecutor April Penny laid into 17-year-old mock defendant Walter Cho in closing arguments, attacking him for saying that he was only playing with the fireworks because he was “curious.”

“Ladies and gentlemen,” intoned April, 14, who said she plans to become a lawyer, “we the Ventura County Court have here a man that is guilty, a man that has no remorse, a man that is eligible for a punishment of $20.97.

“This man, this boy, this CHILD, committed a criminal offense, and he says he was just curious. Well, we all know that curiosity killed the cat, and he is dead. . . . The punishment should be community service, and the fine should be $45, and he should clean the toilets for a month in the Ventura County adult education system.”

But defense attorney Masio Winston, 16, shot back: “He has remorse for what he did. He’s here . He admitted his wrong and, as for the $20.97, not all of us have $20.97 to spend. He says he doesn’t want his parents to pay for what he did; he wants to pay. . . . And as for community service, he’s not a criminal; he was curious .”

After deliberating for about 30 minutes with fellow jurors and agreeing on punishment, jury foregirl Sally Lockard, 17, admitted that “I’ll be nervous” to pass judgment on real defendants and act later as a teen prosecutor.

*

Mock trials have prepared her for the courtroom atmosphere, Sally said, but not for the responsibility of judging her peers.

But fellow juror Kathleen Gunderson, 16, said she is eager to take part in a system that she could only watch frustratedly in coverage of the O. J. Simpson trial.

“I think it’ll be pretty neat,” Kathleen said. “When a teen-ager does something wrong and their peers are involved in the prosecution, [offenders] are more likely to listen.”

Weidenheimer agreed that Teen Court may make more of an impression than the scolding or punishment of adults.

“A lot of times, kids think that other kids will understand better than adults do,” she said. “The experience in other teen courts is that often the teens are harder on their peers than adults are. The same peer pressure applies to good behavior as applies to bad behavior.”