TEEN-AGE INFORMANTS

To be sure, it was defense attorneys for those accused of killing Chad
MacDonald who stressed that the young man from Brea was killed because he
was known to be a police informant.

You can discount their comments, which were obviously calculated to get
their clients something less than the death penalty if convicted - an
effort that does not seem to have succeeded during three days of
preliminary hearings after which the three were ordered to stand trial.

But one thing is true and needs to be emphasized.

Teen-agers, for the most part, are not mature adults.

Police should think very seriously before enlisting or persuading or
pressuring them into doing undercover work in the often dangerous and
vengeful criminal subculture surrounding illegal drugs.

What attorneys for those accused of killing Chad MacDonald and raping and
torturing his girlfriend when they visited what was alleged to be a "crack
house" in Norwalk said is that "Chad had a big mouth.

A whole bunch of people knew that he had worked for the police and that was
the reason he was killed.

The attorneys were trying to establish that the killing did not take place
during a robbery or sexual assault, which are special circumstances that
could lead to the death penalty, but that there was another clear motive.
(They were not entirely successful; the trial will go forward and the judge
has said the death penalty is an option.)

Brea Police Chief Bill Lentini has insisted that Chad MacDonald's work as
an informant played no part in his death, noting that the Brea police
severed their relationship with MacDonald before he visited the house in
Norwalk.

Whether or not Chad MacDonald did demonstrate bad judgment by talking to
the wrong people about his work as a police informant, most young people
would show bad judgment at some point during undercover work, whether
because of immaturity or lack of experience. We have all known 13-year-olds
more mature than the average 30-year-old, but they are the exception, not
the rule.

We hope police officials and prosecutors will keep this in mind and be more
cautious than even the law now requires about using under-age informants.

The MacDonald case led to this new California law, proposed and shepherded
through the Legislature by Huntington Beach Assemblyman Scott Baugh. Under
the law people aged 15 to 17 can still be used as informant, but the
process of approving such use would be more rigorous, with a judge given a
veto power.

Youngsters aged 15 and 16 could still be used in "sting" operations against
people who sell tobacco to youngsters.

Mr. Baugh's office told us that the original proposal would have banned
outright the use of any informant younger than 15, but during committee
hearings the age was reduced to 13, with stricter guidelines for
13-15-year-olds than for those aged 15 to 17. Most police agencies would be
wise to be extremely conservative about using teen-agers in undercover
work, perhaps even acting as if the original proposal had passed and using
people aged 15 to 17 in only the most extraordinary of circumstances.
There's no question young people are fully capable of committing crimes as
horrific as those committed by adults.

But they aren't adults yet.

Checked-by: Joel W. Johnson