Youth Crime Crackdown Up to Voters

The 14-year-old boy walked into the corner convenience store and, not having enough money to buy a drink, allegedly stabbed the market’s co-owner to death.

As he was running from the cramped market last July, he was arrested with a bloody $50 bill in his pocket, prosecutors said. He was driven to the police station, where he reportedly confessed to slaying the woman, who emigrated from India about four years ago.

After a hearing, a judge last month ruled that the youth, Thomas A. Preciado, should be tried as an adult--the first time someone so young will be prosecuted as an adult for murder in rural Sutter County.

On March 7, Californians will decide whether to take such sensitive decisions out of the hands of judges and turn them completely over to prosecutors in the state’s 58 counties.

Proposition 21, championed by former Gov. Pete Wilson, is part of a nationwide movement aimed at cracking down on juvenile criminals. It would increase penalties for gang-related crimes, direct gang members to register with police and reduce the confidential nature of many juvenile proceedings.

Passage of the measure would require the construction of state and local correctional facilities costing more than $1 billion, according to the state’s independent legislative analyst.

The campaign is being waged against the backdrop of an intense national debate over how best to prosecute and incarcerate violent youths. In recent months, the California Youth Authority has been rocked by a series of investigations into brutality by guards, the ouster of its director and the departures of other high-level administrators.

Elsewhere, a judge in Michigan ruled last month that a teenager, convicted of a murder committed when he was 11, should serve seven years and then be released. The judge urged changes in a Michigan law that makes it possible for children of any age to be tried as adults. He called the law “fundamentally flawed” and said the boy has a chance of being rehabilitated.

Proposition 21 is part of a movement to stiffen juvenile sentences and treat a higher percentage of violent youths as harshly as adult criminals. It would change the state’s long-standing policy that youthful offenders, even violent juveniles, automatically should be treated differently, provided mental health counseling and other mentoring and released by the age of 25. Now, cases of youths under 18 are typically handled in confidential Juvenile Court proceedings.

Supporters, including the state’s sheriffs and district attorneys, say the overhaul in the law is needed to curb what they say is a mounting wave of violent crime among juveniles. They say it is likely to grow as the number of young people mushrooms in coming decades.

“The concept is not to throw away the system . . . the concept is to get the most violent offenders into adult court,” said Dave LaBahn, a deputy director of the California District Attorneys Assn.

Opponents say cases like the Yuba City prosecution show that California’s laws already are extremely tough on juveniles. Citing Los Angeles County figures, they say that when prosecutors seek to try juveniles as adults--about 650 times in 1998--judges side with them in about 80% of cases.

The California State Assn. of Counties argues that the changes are too costly for taxpayers. Other critics cite a drop in juvenile arrests in recent years as proof that the measure is not needed.

Late Monday, a spokesman for Los Angeles Police Chief Bernard C. Parks said the chief opposes the proposition as “fatally flawed” because of such provisions as shifting prosecutorial authority to district attorneys. “There are numerous portions of the bill we like, but others that make it a difficult bill,” said Cmdr. Dan Koenig.

Sixty years ago, California’s current juvenile justice system was put in place to rehabilitate wayward youths, most of whom were nonviolent offenders such as car thieves and runaways. It was believed that teenagers were really children and should be treated differently from adults who could understand the ramifications of their crimes.

But over time, especially in the 1980s, law enforcement officials dealt with an upswing in violent crime committed by juveniles, especially young men. As a result, the Wilson administration sought to advance proposals to toughen penalties for youthful criminals.

Wilson’s advisors maintained that the system wasn’t designed to handle teenage murderers and rapists and needed to be toughened. Stymied by the Democratic-controlled Legislature, Wilson, with the help of corporate campaign contributors, lashed various measures together and gathered enough signatures to put his proposals on the ballot as Proposition 21.

Attempting to defuse the measure as a campaign issue, Democrats at the end of the 1999 legislative session pushed through a hastily crafted bill that toughened penalties for juveniles and required that some of those 16 and older be sent to adult court. It was signed by Gov. Gray Davis. On Friday, Davis said he favors Proposition 21.

So far, the Proposition 21 campaign has been a low-key affair, focused mostly on community forums and rallies. But it has triggered strong emotions among those touched by the stabbing death of Yuba City market owner, Rupinder K. Dhillon, 50.

Yuba City, a bustling agricultural community north of Sacramento, has become a magnet for Sikhs, many of whom have become successful entrepreneurs. The area has also been the home of many Latinos, initially drawn by the region’s agriculture.

The local newspaper, the Appeal Democrat, has chronicled every wrinkle of the stabbing case, one of the most high-profile in this area since the arrest nearly 30 years ago of mass killer Juan Corona.

A recent front-page story highlighted a march protesting Preciado’s trial as an adult. The accompanying photo featured a marcher holding a sign in Spanish and English that read: “Thomas Is Not a Monster--He Is a 14-Year-Old Child.”

Naomi Ramirez, Preciado’s mother, who helped organize the demonstration, said her son had struggled in school. He finished the eighth grade just weeks before his arrest.

“I still think the nightmare is going to stop. . . . I can’t believe my son did it,” said Ramirez, an insurance agent who opposes Proposition 21.

Dhillon’s family, which has been shattered by the slaying, helped circulate a petition urging that Preciado be prosecuted in adult court, where he faces a maximum sentence of life in prison if convicted.

The victim’s family believes the law should be strengthened.

“You should not be able to hide behind your age anymore,” said her son-in-law, Harry Gill, a computer software engineer. “This was a very lethal, premeditated attack. There was nothing juvenile about the crime.”