GIVE THE KIDS A BREAK

It's Time to Ease the Too-Tough, and Ill-Conceived, Sentencing of Juveniles.

Vengeance and harsh retribution have been the guiding principles in
our treatment of youth in the criminal justice system since the
crack-cocaine tinged crime wave of the late 1980s crested and then
fell in the mid-1990s. States got tough with laws that allowed the
prosecution of juveniles as adults in certain felony crimes, as well
as the sentencing of youth convicted of murder-related crimes to life
without the chance of parole.

Now a downturn in violent juvenile crime, coupled with more data on
the development of the adolescent brain, are prompting some states to
rethink whether the harsh punishments still fit the crimes.

The time for change is right, even in cases involving juveniles
arrested and convicted of murder and related crimes, such as aiding
and abetting a murder. There are rumblings for reform in several statehouses.

In 2006, Colorado led the way by outlawing sentences of life without
the possiblity of parole for youth offenders. In California, state
Sen. Leland Yee just introduced a bill to prohibit such sentences for
offenders who were younger than 18 at the time of the crime. His
measure would allow judges discretion in sentencing. Absent a
national movement for juvenile sentencing reform, the battles are
often being waged by individual legislators such as Yee or through
grassroots activism in states, such as in Washington, Iowa,
Louisiana, Nebraska and Massachusetts.

Why should we change course now?

First, look at crime trends. For a decade, violent and property
crimes by juveniles have fallen nationwide. In every category of
crime -- from violent felonies such as homicide and rape, to property
crimes of auto theft or robbery -- juvenile rates have been steadily
falling, according to the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics:

. For murder and non-negligent (not accidental) murder, the number of
people under 18 arrested dropped from 1,224 in 1997 to 710 in 2006.
That's a 42% decline. For those over 18, there was a 13% dip.

. Youth arrests for theft fell 45%; for aggravated assault, by 21%;
auto thefts, by 53%.

. Arrests of young people for violent crimes fell by 20% from 1997 to 2006.

Experts see various reasons for the dramatic drop: the end of the
crack-cocaine epidemic and its attendant violence; effective policing
strategies in major urban areas, especially those that focused on
illegal gun possession; and generally rosier economic times.

But it was during the height of the earlier crime wave that today's
laws were crafted. Criminologists warned of a new breed of juvenile
offender, dubbed "superpredator" by John Dilulio, who would bring a
"blood bath" of violent crime, according to James Alan Fox. That
hysteria proved wrong, as evidenced by the falling crime rates among
adolescents and youth.

Biological reasons also provide a strong basis for reform. Current
research has identified critical differences between the young brain
and the adult one, especially in terms of decision-making skills and
impulse control.

These adolescent development issues are what prompted Sen. Yee to
spearhead reform in his state. Yee, a child psychologist, told The
Oakland Tribune: "Adolescent impulse control, planning and critical
thinking skills are still not yet fully developed. Children have an
extraordinary capacity for rehabilitation."

Still not convinced? Human Rights Watch provides a sobering analysis
in its recent report titled, "When I die, that's when they'll send me
home." It reveals that in California, 227 people in prison today were
sentenced to life without parole when they were juveniles, and all
but four were sentenced since that state passed its sentencing law in
1990. Of those, 45% did not commit the actual murder. They were
convicted as accessories to murder, often as lookouts during a
robbery gone awry.

Another argument for reform: According to data from the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention at the Department of
Justice, about two-thirds of youth ages 16-17 who committed crimes as
juveniles -- including assaults, theft, vandalism -- did not commit
crimes into their early adult years, ages 18-19.

Advocates for crime victims have staunchly opposed sentencing reforms
such as Yee's, and that's understandable, says Elizabeth Calvin,
co-author of the Human Rights Watch report.

"What makes it difficult when you are talking about a crime like
murder, which is so horrible and causes so much pain to families and
communities, is that it doesn't help their pain if the offender is a
juvenile," Calvin says. "But sentencing laws and how we treat our
young say a lot about our society."

In some cases, youth convicted of brutal crimes might not be
deserving of consideration. But at a minimum, for those 45%
identified by the report as convicted of accessory to murder, there
is every reason to believe redemption is possible.

Justice strategies for juveniles conceived during a crime-wave
hysteria shouldn't become the template for our society, and
life-without-parole sentencing is a good place to start.

Let's replace Old Testament retribution with New Testament
redemption. After all, if young people don't deserve a second chance,
does anyone?