With Juvenile Offenders, Justice Takes Many Forms

How to stop young people from committing crimes and how to punish those who do rob and maim are questions that again are receiving increased attention.

Eighteen months ago, California lowered the age at which a youth could be charged with murder in an adult court from 16 to 14. Orange County has had two cases since then in which teenagers who would have been tried in Juvenile Court faced possible trial as adults. The results of the two cases were different and instructive of the ways in which judges determine how to treat criminals. That is important to remember when there is a clamor to restrict judicial latitude, including sentencing in three-strikes cases.

In January, Superior Court Judge Eileen C. Moore sentenced Mario Luis Ortiz to 29 years to life in state prison. Ortiz was a Long Beach gang member, had prior convictions and was on probation at the time of the killing of a gas station clerk in Seal Beach. A companion, not Ortiz, actually shot the woman, but Ortiz showed no remorse over the incident. In fact, he laughed as he left the courtroom where Moore described him as a “malignant growth on society.”

Less than two weeks ago, Superior Court Judge Frank F. Fasel, sitting in Juvenile Court, ruled that Danny Connolly would be tried as a juvenile, not an adult, for shooting his mother to death in February. Like Ortiz, Connolly was 14 at the time of the crime.

Fasel said Connolly was “not criminally sophisticated” and had expressed remorse. The judge said he believed the teenager could benefit from counseling at the California Youth Authority, where he will be held until age 25.

Ortiz had no one in court on his behalf. Connolly had the steadfast support of his father and sister, devastated though they were by the death of their wife and mother. Said Fasel: “This is not about sympathy. This is not about compassion. This hearing is about the law.”

Judges are not required to spell out the reasons they impose the sentences they do--why four years in prison instead of six or eight--but most do so. That is fortunate, since it educates the public as well as any appeals court judges who may review a trial or sentence. Arguments by prosecution and defense attorneys, the facts in the case, a Probation Department report, testimony from sympathizers and opponents all rightly play a part. But clearly it is the judges’ job to judge. That is why they are on the bench, to make the decisions.

Of course, society would be better off keeping as many juveniles as possible out of the court system. Although most teenagers do steer clear of the halls of justice, a surge in violent crime among those age 14 to 17 in recent years has led to tougher laws, such as the one reducing the age at which youths can be treated as adults in some cases.

The Rand Corp. last month looked at a variety of options to deter crime by the young, strictly on a cost basis. Simply building jails and prisons is more likely to impoverish us before it solves the crime problem. Even when facilities are built, in some cases there is no money to operate them, as Los Angeles County has found in trying to scrape up funds to open its “twin towers” jails.

Rand noted an especially worthwhile program undertaken by the Orange County Probation Department. Although still a work in progress, the program is sufficiently promising that it was singled out by Orange County’s chief executive officer, Jan Mittermeier, last month as one that will be continued despite the county’s post-bankruptcy budgetary problems.

For seven years, the Probation Department studied more than 6,000 juvenile offenders. It concluded that 8% of the youths were responsible for more than 50% of repeat offenses. That means a small minority is responsible for an enormous amount of money spent on court and jail costs. Now the department rightly is studying methods to identify those likely to become hard-core offenders and ways to short-circuit their criminal careers.

The Probation Department wisely has involved entire families of those at risk of joining the “8-percenters.” That recognizes that home life in most cases plays a major factor in youth violence. If the program fulfills its initial promise, it can help save society money and make it safer.