News
Judges and Judiciary
Aug. 24, 1994
Juvenile Court: Is the Concept Too Outdated?
There is good, there is good, there is untapped good.
Inside the worst of us is good.
-Stephen Sondheim,
"West Side Story"
LOS ANGELES - The veteran judge spoke slowly and with a hint of despair in his voice:
"I have one 15-year-old who murdered at least three people for hire that we know of, and probably two others. We put him away but the law says we must release him at age 25. If I ever meet him on the street, I hope I have a weapon to protect myself, because he will be a real menace to society."
Later, the same judge confronted a tall, strapping 16-year-old, found guilty of an unprovoked assault on a weaker neighborhood kid. The boy bowed his head as the judge sentenced him to six nights in juvenile hall and an extended period of in-home supervision. The mother embraced her son and fought back tears as he was led away by a deputy sheriff.
"I wanted him to have a taste of incarceration, to understand what it means to get locked up," said Judge Robert D. Mackey of the Los Angeles County Juvenile Court. "But I don't think he's a bad kid, and this was his first contact with the court. I consider him a good risk for probation."
Therein lies the dilemma for judges in the juvenile court system in California: dispensing equal justice to both schoolyard bullies and gang-bangers, graffiti taggers and vandals, carjackers and cold-blooded killers.
For many judges in Los Angeles - as throughout California - the task is often frustrating. They hope for rehabilitation of the juveniles who come into the system, but at least one study shows barely more than half are able to stay out of trouble for at least three years.
Statistics show the rate of juvenile crime - particularly murder - is increasing faster than the courts can handle cases. And in many respects, the current juvenile system seems inadequate to the challenge of meting out effective treatment or punishment.
The Juvenile Court Law of 1909, as amended, is designed to treat offenders under the age of 18 with measured doses of toughness and compassion, and always with the idea that every juvenile deserves the opportunity for rehabilitation. No one under the age of 17 can be held in custody beyond his or her 25th birthday, regardless of the crime.
However well-intentioned, many consider it an unrealistic concept in today's violence-prone society. Murder, for example, is the fastest-growing crime nationwide among youths 14 to 17 years old - an alarming increase of 160 percent in the past decade, according to James Fox, dean of the College of Criminal Justice at Northeastern University.
In California, the rate of homicides committed by youths under 17 - "The young and the ruthless," Fox said - mirrors the national average. In 1984, there were 104 violent deaths at the hands of teens; in 1992 that number had risen to 260.
"This is alarming because while the murder rate among minors increased, the population decreased. Now, the teen-aged population is on the rise again, so I expect to see even higher numbers in the next 10 years," Fox said.
Judges and commissioners in Los Angeles County Juvenile Court, the largest system in the nation, are not surprised.
"We see 17-year-old kids coming here from Central America who have served in the army for three years. They have a far different attitude about life than the average teen-ager, and rehabilitation is not going to work," said Mackey, who presides in the Eastlake Division in East Los Angeles, one of the county's busiest venues.
"The kids today have no fear of the system. They know the weaknesses as well as we do," said Jack J. Gold, a Juvenile Court commissioner with 14 years' experience who sits in the Sylmar court, which encompasses the ethnically diverse San Fernando Valley.
Officials widely complain of the lack of resources to adequately keep track of juvenile offenders. And this lack of close supervision can have tragic consequences. "I put one teen-aged drug user in a foster home, and he ran back to his old neighborhood," said San Francisco Superior Court Judge Donald S. Mitchell, formerly a presiding judge in the Juvenile Division.
"I spotted him on the street a few months later, in the late summer. He looked completely wasted, and I said if we don't get him back in the home, he'll be dead by Christmas," he said.
Mitchell said he issued a warrant for the boy's arrest and urged the Probation Department and the San Francisco police to pick him up.
"I told them where to find him, but they said they were just too busy. In February, I learned that the boy had been murdered," he said.
The weaknesses in the juvenile justice system include:
????????????????????????????????????????????An understaffed Probation Department, which is responsible for providing the courts with personal histories of all juvenile offenders. Only 82 investigative officers are assigned to provide background data on more than 25,000 cases each year.
?????????????????????? Relatively light punishment for first- and second-time offenders, usually at-home supervision or short periods of confinement in juvenile hall followed by six months to a year of probation.
?????????????????????? Inadequate post-confinement supervision. Most Los Angeles County probation officers carry as many as 180 active cases in their files. Without close supervision, juvenile offenders are free to resume their criminal lifestyles.
?????????????????????? Severe overcrowding in the youth camps where most repeat offenders are confined. To make room for new arrivals, offenders can expect to be released in four to six months if they obey the rules and do not cause trouble. After release, they usually return to the same drug- and gang-infested neighborhoods that influenced their delinquent behavior in the first place.
?????????????????????? Release from incarceration by age 25 for all offenders under the age of 17. Judges say this limitation gives violence-prone minors the notion that they can literally get away with murder.
"Who made 25 a magic number?" asked Gold, shaking his head. "We could keep some of these kids until they're 50 and they still wouldn't be fit for release."
"I have seen some very mature and very violent 14- and 15-year-olds," said Wayne C. Denton, one of four commissioners who sit in the Eastlake Division. In a typical week, Eastlake, like the five other Juvenile Court centers, will process 75 to 100 new petitions, ranging from chronic truancy to homicide.
"We can handle the minor offenses - truancy, petty thefts, things like that, but we're not equipped to deal with the hard-core offenders, and we're getting more of them all the time," Denton said.
National crime statistics support Denton's grim assessment. While juvenile court referrals increased 26 percent from 1987 to 1992, the number of murders, rapes, robberies and assaults by juveniles increased 68 percent, according to a 50-state survey by the U.S. Department of Justice.
Alarmed by the trend and sensitive to the public's increased concern, juvenile court judges appear more willing than ever to surrender their charges to the adult courts.
Since 1977, juveniles 16 years and older may be tried as adults for approximately 20 enumerated offenses, including murder, assault, crimes with a gun and drug dealing. (See section 707(b) of the Welfare and Institutions Code.)
The juvenile court must first hold a "707 hearing" to determine if the minor remains a fit subject for continued jurisdiction. The judge or commissioner applies the following criteria:
?????????????????????? Degree of sophistication exhibited by the minor.
?????????????????????? Prospects for rehabilitation by the time the minor turns 18.
?????????????????????? Minor's previous delinquent history.
?????????????????????? Success of past efforts to rehabilitate the minor.
?????????????????????? Circumstances and gravity of the offense.
In the past year, almost 90 percent of the 16- and 17-year-olds involved in 707 hearings in Los Angeles County have been found unfit and moved to adult courts, according to the judges.
If convicted, however, they are still considered fit subjects for rehabilitation. They will be housed with the California Youth Authority - facilities operated by the state Department of Corrections for the juvenile courts - until the age of 25.
Several lawmakers in Sacramento have proposed lowering the age of adult court jurisdiction to 14 for murder and other crimes of violence. Others want to lower the CYA age limit from 25 to 21.
However, Judge Marcus O. Tucker, who presides over the Juvenile Division of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, wants to raise that age limit to 30.
"There is still a chance for rehabilitation if we can keep these people in the system. There's no chance for rehabilitation if we ship them off to state prisons," Tucker said.
Prisons are neither sufficiently equipped - nor required - to rehabilitate.
The Legislature confirmed that view in its 1977 revamping of the California Penal Code. "The Legislature finds and declares that the purpose of imprisonment for crime is punishment," Article 1, section 1170(a)(1) of the revised code declared. No mention was made of rehabilitating convicted felons.
The prospect for rehabilitation is what inspires most juvenile court judges to show up for work every morning. "A majority of the kids complete their terms of probation satisfactorily, and I never see them again. That's the very best part of the job," said Judge Morton Rochman, who has presided over the Sylmar Juvenile Court for the past eight years, adding he would like to remain for at least another two years.
Statistically, 57 percent of the minors brought to juvenile court fulfilled their court-imposed obligations satisfactorily and did not return, according to a three-year study by the Los Angeles County Probation Department.
But that meant 43 percent were back in court, including 16 percent of the total offenders - most of them 16 years and younger - who came back three or more times. In fact, this group comprised two-thirds of all delinquency petitions filed by the county, the study concluded.
In a similar study in Orange County, 66 percent of first-time offenders seemed to avoid further trouble; they did not return to juvenile court during the ensuing three years. The number of repeat offenders - three or more subsequent petitions - numbered 8 percent.
The Los Angeles County Probation Department study tracked 11,493 minors who came into the system between January and June 1990. Three years later, 6,500 were not cited for new violations; 4,985 had one or two additional referrals; and 1,867 had four or more referrals, some with 10 or more, the study noted.
"Most of them are hard-core," said Judge Jaime Corral, referring to the repeat offenders. "They usually end up in the California Youth Authority, and we never see them again." Corral is a veteran of nine years in the Juvenile Division and is presiding judge at the predominately Hispanic Northeast Juvenile Center.
Corral said increased attention must be given to the 25 percent to 30 percent headed for serious trouble. "We tailor each case to the needs of the individual. We look at school performance, family structure, neighborhood contacts. Then we decide the best way to rehabilitate this kid. That's our job."
Judges and commissioners must depend on data supplied by the county probation officers, and most jurists rely on their recommendations.
"They are the eyes and ears of the court. We have some very good probation officers and some very bad ones, and they are all overworked," said Mackey, who served 18 months as a probation officer before becoming a lawyer.
There are 500 field service officers in the juvenile system, and most of them have bachelor's degrees in behavioral science, according to Raul Solis, who is chief of the Probation Department's Juvenile Services Bureau.
The unit, the largest in the nation, services the courts but reports to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. Most judges consider the operation woefully understaffed and poorly funded.
Probation officers prepare a case file on every juvenile who enters the system. This includes information on the minor's environment, family structure, school performance, gang affiliations, possible drug use, and latent physical and psychological problems.
But the bureau assigns only 82 officers to compile background files on each new offender. "That's about an average of eight hours per officer for each new case," Solis estimated. Judges consider that amount of time to be hardly adequate.
"A lot of the background information never gets to us," said Mackey. "There just aren't enough people in the probation department to do the job."
The majority of the probation officers, about 300 in number, are assigned to post-sentence supervision to ensure that the court's conditions of probation or supervision are rigidly followed. However, since each officer is assigned an average of 180 cases, close supervision is virtually impossible.
Approximately 80 probation officers who are assigned to supervise "hard-core" black, Hispanic and Asian gang members are considered more effective than average because they are assigned only about 50 cases each. In addition, the bureau assigns 35 officers to an alternative prevention program for gang members, counseling and promoting after-school activities designed to keep these youngsters out of trouble.
The probation department also operates 19 camps for about 2,000 wards of the court who are in need of a "structured environment," according to Solis. Here the juveniles are afforded vocational training, specialized tutoring and closely supervised recreational activity.
"The camps are effective because the kids are forced to stay in school," said Judge Corral. "There is a direct connection between truancy and delinquency, and the longer we keep these kids occupied, the better chance we have to rehabilitate them."
Commissioner Denton agrees, to a point. "If we could keep them in school. If we can supervise them closely - but we can't. There is a whole subculture out there of kids who sleep until 4 in the afternoon, leave the house at 6, and stay out all night looking for trouble. Those are the ones causing all the problems, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it."
Most juvenile judges can recount many stories of oversight and neglect. "There is only so much that can be done, given the financial resources of the county," said Judge Rochman. "Every county agency has the same problem. The public does not want to pay the money to fix these problems."
What the judges and commissioners fear most is the "knee-jerk" reaction of the Legislature. "We do not need a Band-Aid approach to the problem, like the 'three strikes' legislation," said Tucker, who steps down as presiding judge of the Los Angeles Juvenile Court in December.
"We need a comprehensive approach, which encompasses the entire problem of dependency, truancy and delinquency. They are all linked," Tucker said.
While most judges concede that the concept of rehabilitation appears to be losing favor among lawmakers, Commissioner Gary Bounds, who has been in the Sylmar court for 41/2 years, refuses to concede that some juveniles are beyond redemption.
"We should not be sending 14- and 15-year-olds to adult courts. They're not adults, they're children. A 14-year-old does not have the same appreciation as an adult for the consequences of his actions. We must make every effort to reach these kids, regardless of the crime," he said.
Including cold-blooded killers? Bounds was asked.
Even cold-blooded killers, he replied.
Wednesday: In Sacramento, a crackdown on juvenile crime.
#271052
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com