Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, September 13, 1994 TAG: 9409130032
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: A4 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: LAURENCE HAMMACK STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
They are playing in city parks and studying in elementary school classrooms. Some are still in diapers.
When they reach their teens, they will form the largest population of 13- to 17-year-olds that Virginia has seen in decades. And, as they enter their most crime-prone years, crime rates will soar, experts predict.
While Gov. George Allen pledges to ``stop the bleeding'' in Virginia by abolishing parole and making criminals serve longer sentences, critics fear the high cost of the Allen plan will divert new money from programs that target at-risk children.
Instead of addressing the root causes of crime, the Allen administration seems more intent on building prisons to house the results, says Jerry Miller of the Alexandria-based National Center on Institutions and Alternatives.
``They're looking at these kids and they're writing them off,'' said Miller, who previously headed juvenile justice systems in three states.
Robert Shepherd, a University of Richmond law professor and member of a Commission on Youth task force that studied serious juvenile offenders, wants to see the criminal justice system ``get smart, and not just get tough.''
``We need to be focusing our sights on, and placing more resources in, prevention rather than simply in interdiction,'' Shepherd wrote in a dissent to the task force's final report. The task force recommended new laws lowering the age at which juveniles can be tried as adults and giving juvenile court judges the ability to set longer sentences.
``As a society, we are clearly backloading the system,'' Shepherd said. ``We're putting all of the resources into policing, prosecuting and incarcerating, and very little into diminishing the number of individuals who are participating in crime.''
The Allen plan said reforms in the juvenile system should not be considered until next year.
Some critics worry that the juvenile justice system, underfunded for years, will receive even fewer resources as Allen's proposal shifts attention to adult corrections.
``Relatively speaking, the juvenile justice system is a small entity, and I suspect that, in the short run, the adult system is going to get a lion's share of any new resources,'' said Wayne Frith, executive director of the Crater Youth Care Commission in Petersburg.
Meanwhile, the system must cope with soaring caseloads, overloaded juvenile probation officers and dangerously overcrowded detention centers.
The number of new cases in Virginia's Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts increased by 9 percent last year, while caseloads in the state's other trial courts - General District and Circuit Court - remained stable or decreased, according to the 1993 State of the Judiciary Report.
And, 18 months after a report detailed crowding and sometimes dangerous conditions in the state's juvenile detention centers, overcrowding has become even worse. The report, compiled by the Youth Law Center of San Francisco, described detention centers so packed that some youths were sleeping in bathrooms and other youths who were locked up for as long as 18 hours a day.
``Frankly, the impact of that report was nil,'' Frith said. ``It raised some flags and set the stage for potential litigation, although none has been forthcoming.''
A new law that allows juvenile court judges to set longer sentences is expected to worsen overcrowding.
The state's seven learning centers - now operating at more than 100 juveniles above their 725-person capacity - are expected to see their population increase by 1,200 by 1998. A Senate finance committee report estimates it will cost $93 million to build enough learning centers to handle the increase.
With no short-term solutions to overcrowding in sight, judges and juvenile court officials say more emphasis must be placed on prevention and intervention programs that identify high-risk youths before they turn to crime.
The problem is, it's impossible to identify future criminals with any certainty.
Still, most at-risk children usually come from low-income and troubled families, often headed by a single parent, and have experienced educational and emotional problems at an early age.
Other contributing factors, such as peer influence and early exposure to violence by the media and society at large, are cited by those who work with troubled youths.
``It's like a witch's brew. You keep adding the ingredients and as you stir it up you get more and more problems,'' said Dennis Waite, chief psychologist with the Department of Youth and Family Services.
By the time many youths are sent to the state's learning centers, the ingredients are evident. Of the 1,470 juveniles committed to the centers in 1993:
Only 14 percent were living with both natural parents when they were committed. Forty percent were living with their mother only, 15 percent with one natural parent or step-parent, and 7 percent with their grandparents.
Forty-three percent had been identified as requiring special education.
Forty-three percent reported a history of abusing drugs or alcohol; 16 percent had been physically abused; 9 percent had been sexually abused.
Twenty-five percent of the youths had been previously committed to the Department of Youth and Family Services; 56 percent had a history of assaulting their peers; and 30 percent had a history of weapon possession.
Only 13 percent were attending school regularly when they were committed. Seventeen percent occasionally missed school, and 65 percent were often truant or not attending school at all.
``School becomes a failing experience for them, and then they start to band together with other young people with similar problems, and they reinforce each other with attitudes that are anti-social and anti-authority,'' said Dewey G. Cornell, a clinical psychologist at the University of Virginia's school of education.
Cornell, who has studied the statistics involving more than 2,400 juvenile killers, said the accessibility of guns is also a key contributing factor. More than 61 percent of the youths charged with murder in 1991 used handguns.
Impulsive by nature, juveniles are most susceptible to making hair-trigger decisions with the aid of fast-firing weapons. ``When you evaluate these youths, you find that if a handgun had not been present, most of the homicides would not have occurred,'' Cornell said.
The media - television and movies in particular - are also blamed for glamorizing violence.
Audrey Franks, chief judge in Richmond's Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, said television can be especially damaging in homes where parents have less of a presence.
``It's such a simple way to learn and such a hypnotic, compelling medium,'' Franks said. ``The power of that is something that I don't think we fully appreciate at this point.''
Perhaps the biggest factor on a young person's development is parental supervision - or the lack of it.
``There is no getting around the truth that there is an ever-increasing number of people having children who don't know what they're doing,'' Roanoke Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Judge Philip Trompeter said.
Trompeter said it may be necessary for courts to provide the structure and stability that is often lacking in homes - even if it means keeping youths in supervised programs and on probation for longer periods of time.
``When you talk about years of indoctrination in a particular environment, we have to be willing to go long-term,'' he said. ``We need to be with these kids for the long run, but frankly I don't know if we're willing to do that as a society.''
by CNB