The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“CONSEQUENCES IN SENTENCING FOR YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E149-E150 on Jan. 20, 1995.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
CONSEQUENCES IN SENTENCING FOR YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
______
HON. RON WYDEN
of oregon
in the house of representatives
Friday, January 20, 1995
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Speaker, in searching for a strong, practical strategy for reducing crime, both Democrats and Republicans have given short shrift to the growing problem of violent crime perpetrated by juveniles.
The growth rate of violent crime committed by juveniles now exceeds that of adults. For example, in my home State of Oregon on May 24, 1994, The Oregonian reported that ``adult crime statistics have flattened out, but the number of violent juvenile crimes increased by 80 percent between 1988 and 1992.''
Nationally, according to a 1994 Department of Justice report, youth arrests for murder increased 85 percent, while adult arrests only increased 21 percent between 1987 and 1991. More generally, the violent crime index for juveniles increased 50 percent over the same period, while the adult violent crime index only increased 25 percent.
Despite the dramatic increase in violent crimes by juveniles, both the 1994 crime bill and the crime provisions in the Republican Contract With America are business as usual with respect to juvenile crime.
The 1994 crime bill allocates $7.9 billion for correctional facilities and a relatively paltry $150 million for alternative juvenile correctional facilities. The Republican Taking Back Our Streets Act contains nine law enforcement titles but doesn't once address the issue of violent juvenile crime.
To their credit, the Clinton administration is trying to fill the gaps in the 1994 crime bill provisions. Despite controversy, they have interpreted the Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth in Sentencing Act to be applicable to juveniles. However, the clear thrust of the violent offender provisions in the 1994 crime bill is to reform the adult system and guarantee that our communities are safe from violent adult offenders. In fact, the bigger law enforcement challenge for our country is to reduce juvenile crime.
My legislation, the Consequences in Sentencing for Young Offenders Act, pursues a fresh strategy against juvenile crime and sends a straight-forward message: young people who commit a crime will face real consequences for each criminal act and those consequences will increase each time they commit an additional offense.
At present, juvenile criminals face few if any consequences. For the first offense--and often many thereafter--there is likely to be probation at best. A bit of history is in order.
At the turn of the century, States began to separate the juvenile system from the adult system because of a belief that children who committed crimes could be rehabilitated. The States introduced the concept of parens patriae or a system that might act in the interests of the child. By 1925, all but two States had juvenile courts separate from adult courts. As long as this system was dealing with kids who used bad language and shoplifted, the system got by.
In the 1960's and 1970's, with escalating rates of juvenile crime, new standards for juvenile justice were developed with an emphasis on placing juveniles in the least restrictive situation and on counselling instead of punishment. This system was based on a medical model approach grounded in the theory that young people could be cured of their criminal habits. However, little convincing evidence has emerged to show that programs based on the idea of rehabilitation have been effective in reducing recidivism and in protecting our communities.
In reality, the understandable anger Americans direct at the juvenile justice system stems from the fact that the medical model has often ended up putting our communities at serious risk from young offenders.
Several cases from Portland, OR illustrate what is wrong with the medical model: In 1993, 9 months after being convicted of raping a 4-
year-old and facing absolutely no penalty for this crime, a 15-year-old youth and another juvenile who also had a record of violent crime and had faced few penalties, assaulted an Oregonian who was left permanently brain-damaged by the attack. In another case, described in The Oregonian, a child committed 50 crimes, 32 of which were felonies, before the juvenile justice system took action to protect the community.
Nationally, only 50 percent of juvenile cases even go to juvenile court. Most cases are handled by some form of social services division. The majority of juveniles who do go to court are given probation. Incredibly, there is little follow up: many jurisdictions do not collect data on what happens to youths referred to the local juvenile services division.
In Portland, until recently it was common practice for a juvenile to commit three crimes before being referred to juvenile court. When an offender was diverted from court they were required to sign a contract specifying what they would do to help themselves change their ways. This contract included such basic elements as attending drug or alcohol counselling programs, community service or restitution, or participating in a Big Brother/Big Sister Program.
An audit of this system found that only 40 percent of the juveniles ever completed their contracts. Ten percent partially completed them, and the other 50 percent just slipped through the cracks. The major reasons for nonparticipation given were
that the families were not responsive, or they just refused to participate.
This system in Oregon was actually profiled in 1990 as being a model for the Nation by the Federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention!
According to New York Magazine, the situation in the Empire State is far worse. Thirty thousand juveniles picked up for misdemeanors in 1993 were issued youth division cards and then released--essentially the paperwork was filed and the child walked out.
The Consequences in Sentencing Act that I introduce today seeks to address the glaring
[[Page E150]] shortcomings in juvenile justice by giving incentives to States to adopt a new philosophy of juvenile justice--one built on a system of meaningful sanctions that increase with each juvenile offense.
This concept has been endorsed by the likes of James Q. Wilson from the University of California at Los Angeles who states that ``the juvenile courts ought to manage the young people brought before them by a system of consistent, graduated sanctions that attach costs to every offense, beginning with the first.'' Dr. Wilson has been good enough to counsel me with respect to the legislation I offer today, and I would like to thank him for his suggestions and years of outstanding scholarship.
Additionally, I have worked closely with Oregon's attorney general, Ted Kulongoski who chairs the National Attorney General's Association task force on juvenile justice, and prosecutors, judges, law enforcement, and juvenile services directors both in Oregon and across the country. I would especially like to commend and thank Attorney General Kulongoski, Portland district attorney Michael Schrunk, Bend juvenile services director Dennis Maloney, Judge Stephen Herrell, and Portland Police Chief Charles Moose for their commitment to juvenile reform and their assistance in drafting this legislation.
Under the first part of my bill, I would amend the 1994 crime bill to give States with a system of graduated sanctions preference in receiving discretionary grants under the violent offender incarceration provisions. Additionally, these States would be able to access unused truth-in-sentencing funds for juvenile correctional facilities. The second part of the bill allows States with graduated sanctions the option to use any future funds allocated for adult correctional facilities for juvenile facilities.
This approach gives States willing to put new accountability in their juvenile justice systems the opportunity to secure additional Federal resources. States are given considerable flexibility as to how they devise their own systems, but must show that they have adopted a system of meaningful graduated sanctions with the following characteristics:
First, every offense carries a sanction of at least reimbursing the victim for the crime and for the bureaucratic cost of dealing with the crime.
Second, juveniles will move up a scale of increasingly severe sanctions if they break probation or commit a repeat offense.
Third, violent juveniles should be efficiently remanded to adult court.
Fourth, all juveniles who enter the juvenile justice system should answer to the court.
Fifth, to the extent practicable, parents should be held responsible for their child's conduct.
Sixth, the juvenile system should be periodically audited for its effectiveness in protecting the community safety, reducing recidivism and ensuring compliance with sanctions.
For the most part, there is a consensus among judges, prosecutors, police and people working in youth services, that any new philosophy of juvenile justice should place emphasis on community safety, individual accountability, work, restitution to victims and community, parental involvement and responsibility, certainty and consistency of response and sanctions, zero-tolerance for noncompliance and the highest priority given to community safety.
My sense is that some States are beginning to integrate these objectives in their juvenile justice systems--the Federal Government needs to provide States with the incentives and resources to continue in this direction. Incentives and resources for these purposes is what my bill is about, and I hope others will join me and the police, prosecutors, judges and juvenile services directors in a national effort to rethink our juvenile justice systems' philosophy and priorities.
____________________
