Getting Tough Isn’t the Only Answer to Juvenile Crime

In dozens of bills last session, the California Legislature proposed nearly identical solutions for the fearsome rise in juvenile crime: Get tough on young punks, and if that doesn’t work then get even tougher. In January, when the new legislative session begins, lawmakers will have an opportunity to take a more thoughtful approach and make real progress in this important area.

The rise in violent and otherwise serious offenses by juveniles understandably frightens the public. Arrests for violent crime in this age group jumped 82% between 1985 and 1994. There are projections of even worse numbers as the population of juveniles expands. Highly publicized crimes, including a recent carjacking and shooting in which a 15-year-old was arrested and charged in Riverside along with an adult, only compound public fears and amplify the impulse to get tougher.

Certainly in many instances harsh punishments should be assessed for the most violent crimes, like murder, even when the perpetrator is an adolescent. In 1995 California dropped from 16 to 14 the age at which a youth can be charged with murder in adult court. But the campaign to make the state’s laws more punitive will fail to make our streets safer if it ignores the biggest part of the youth crime problem. That is the teenagers without long criminal records who by dint of family circumstances or other problems fall into criminal activity.

It is through programs targeted on kids like these that a bipartisan task force of juvenile justice experts hopes to make its greatest impact. The report of the California Task Force to Review Juvenile Crime and the Juvenile Justice Response, released earlier this month, represents a year of research and debate among lawmakers, law enforcement officials and experts.

The findings will be valuable, but while the task force was still in the midst of its work many lawmakers jumped the gun, pushing bills that focused on hard-core offenders without offering much in the way of programs of prevention or rehabilitation for teenagers who were not yet lost causes.

The group’s report offers a sensible road map to a safer future. Its 48 specific recommendations point to a more balanced approach to juvenile crime, stressing equal consideration for “community protection,” prevention and, where appropriate, rehabilitation. That still means harsh punishment for the worst crimes. But it also means targeted efforts to identify youngsters who are at risk for delinquency and crime.

Such programs already have been established in some Minnesota cities, Orange County and elsewhere, and they are making a difference, diverting kids away from gangs and breaking patterns of petty criminal behavior that lead to more serious offenses. To have a significant effect, the approach taken by these isolated programs should be adopted statewide and assured a reliable source of funds.

The newly convened state Senate subcommittee on juvenile justice seems a good place to start. Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Burbank) says that the task force report has given him useful guidance for forming an effective strategy to control youth crime. Wise action by the Legislature on juvenile crime would do more than any other step to advance public safety.