Crackdown on Youth Crime: Without Balance, It's a Loser
At least some in Congress see that prevention is crucial

Juvenile crime has increased by more than 60% since 1984,
while the overall U.S. crime rate has fallen in recent years.
By the year 2010, the incidence of juvenile crime is expected to
double amid a teenage population surge. No improvement is in
sight. Lawmakers are rightly alarmed but should recognize that
harsher punishment is not the onlyor even the most
effectivemeans of stemming the tide.
Congress, seeking to toughen a system perceived as coddling
juvenile criminals, is debating similar House and Senate bills that
would distribute up to $3.6 billion over five years to states that are
making "reasonable efforts" to prosecute juveniles over 13 as adults
for violent felonies; that impose graduated sanctions for juvenile
repeat offenders, and that conduct drug tests on juveniles arrested
on felony charges.
Elements of both bills could usefully encourage state officials to
intervene early in teenagers' lives, before petty crimes can escalate
into felonies. Unfortunately, since Atty. Gen. Janet Reno criticized
the bills last week for ignoring prevention measures in their zeal to
prosecute, many legislators have been falsely couching the debate
as one between liberals soft on crime and conservatives hungry to
crack down hard.
The debate in Congress should not be over which interventions
are hard or soft but which are effective or ineffective. And enough
evidence is in to show that the bills as presently written, emphasizing
prosecution and all but ignoring prevention, would not do enough to
slow juvenile crime rates.
For instance, while the bills encourage steep fines for youngsters
who violate curfew (such as the $2,500 now levied in two Ventura
County cities, Thousand Oaks and Fillmore), research shows that
curfew fines often escalate the family problems that are driving
teenagers out of their houses in the first place. In fact, a leading
cause of errant juvenile behavior like curfew violations and truancy
is child abuse. A study issued last month by the Child Welfare
League of America found that abused children are 67 times more
likely than nonabused ones to run afoul of the law. Neither of the
congressional bills, however, earmarks funds to provide social
workers with the tools they need to fight abuse discovered when a
child breaks the law.
Similarly, while the bills assume that imprisoning more youths as
adults will somehow stymie crime, the research argues otherwise.
The obvious but overlooked solution is for Congress to require
states to tie preventive programs to punitive measures. This country
clearly needs more early intervention programs in public schools to
identify children who are tardy or ditching classes and put them
back on course.
The House can affirm the importance of preventive measures by
voting next week for a bill authored by Rep. Frank Riggs
(RWindsor), a former police officer. His measure, HR 1818,
would funnel money to state and local agencies for a range of
prevention programs like mentoring, drug and alcohol treatment and
job training. The bill's preventive focus provides needed balance to
the House's punitive bill, HR 3, by Rep. Bill McCollum (RFla.).
It would be easy if the solution were as simple as locking them
up earlier and longer. But it isn't, as liberal and conservative
criminologists, along with public officials like Reno and Riggs, have
pointed out. McCollum and other legislators would do more for
public safety by listening to the voices of experience.

Search the archives of the Los Angeles Times for similar stories. You will
not be charged to look for stories, only to retrieve one.

Copyright Los Angeles Times