Flaw Spoils Sound Juvenile Crime Bill
Full of the political certainties of the day, the 1977 Legislature enacted sweeping reforms to the laws that govern juvenile crime in Washington state. Now juvenile crime is worse.
Full of the political certainties of our day, the 1997 Legislature is at it again.
Like the politicians of ‘77, some of 1997’s politicians appear to think that they can sit in their marbled chambers and from there micromanage the agonizing subtleties of doing justice in real courtrooms with real people.
This year’s reforms are contained in HB 3900 - a huge bill passed by the House and headed now for the Senate and the governor’s veto pen. Many of its provisions do deserve enactment.
But in one important respect - a politically trendy mandate to kick teen offenders into adult prisons - the Legislature risks making a terrible mistake.
First, the good news. HB 3900 would: Require an offender’s parents to attend court hearings (many don’t bother). Allow a longer period of parole supervision for sex offenders. Allow courts to order treatment for drug or alcohol addictions. Allow offenders with longer sentences to serve them in a “basic training” camp. Increase the severity of penalties for drive-by shootings and child molestation. Simplify the rigid, ridiculously complex formulas by which sentences now are determined. Give judges more leeway to tailor justice to the facts of each case.
All of that, and more, is in jeopardy because some legislators have insisted on including the mandate that offenders 16 and over be booted automatically to adult courts and prisons if they’re charged with one of several moderately serious crimes. Already, current law mandates adult treatment for the most serious crimes, such as murder and first-degree rape, robbery or assault. The new proposal involves lesser offenses such as vehicular assault, second-degree assault, second-degree robbery and possession of an explosive device.
Yes, these can be serious crimes - and under current laws can be treated as such. But consider a few scenarios that could force a 16-year-old to be imprisoned alongside hardened adult cons: causing a car accident that injures a friend (vehicular assault); stealing a classmate’s jacket, or lunch, by threatening to hit him (second-degree robbery).
Research has found that recidivism is higher among juveniles sent to adult prisons. In some circumstances, particularly involving first-time offenders, judges should have the discretion to keep older juveniles in the juvenile system. Judges are in a far better position than politicians to decide what’s needed to get a particular offender back on track.
Only as an afterthought did the House add provisions for adult prisons and jails to hold school for 16- and 17-year-olds, and to separate them from adult inmates. How would that be done and what would it cost? The House didn’t even find out. The Senate should.
There’s plenty of “git-tuff” in the good provisions of this bill. But politicians have a higher duty than enacting bumper stickers and calling it justice. A wise juvenile justice law would make sure judges have the discretion they need, in the real world, to prevent today’s troubled kids from becoming tomorrow’s hardened killers.
, DataTimes The following fields overflowed: CREDIT = John Webster For the editorial board