THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Saturday, October 14, 1995 TAG: 9510140290
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY JUNE ARNEY, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: RICHMOND LENGTH: Long : 130 lines
Two-thirds of the people who responded to a statewide survey on juvenile justice reform said that government efforts should focus on prevention or rehabilitation rather than enforcement or punishment.
The survey results, released Friday, seem to run counter to what the Governor's Commission on Juvenile Justice Reform is proposing, said Del. Jerrauld C. Jones, D-Norfolk, who chairs a second state group studying juvenile justice.
The Virginia Commission on Youth, headed by Jones, and the Governor's Commission, chaired by Attorney General James S. Gilmore III, are both bipartisan groups that agree change is needed. Both will make recommendations to the 1996 General Assembly.
``Once again it seems as if the political rhetoric may be a little bit out of step with what our public is thinking,'' Jones said Friday. ``The public is not willing to turn their back on rehabilitation.''
A second survey, by Virginia Commonwealth University, also seems to oppose the stand that Gilmore's commission has taken in several areas, including giving prosecutors more discretion in transferring cases to adult court. About 1,800 experts were surveyed, including judges, prosecutors, court officials and police.
``If you look again at the governor's recommendations, they are directly opposed to the public at large and to the Virginia experts,'' Jones said.
These are the most extensive surveys taken recently of the attitudes of the public and experts on juvenile-justice reform.
Patricia West, director of the state Department of Youth and Family Services, said she does not think the surveys contradict the proposals of Gilmore's commission. She said she is skeptical of all surveys without knowing the details of how they are done.
West said that VCU's survey did not address the specific question of whether the main purpose of the juvenile justice system should be public safety. ``I don't think you can extrapolate, from the questions that are asked, that the public is not supportive of public safety as the primary goal,'' she said.
``I make no apologies,'' she added. ``As far as I'm concerned, the number one goal of the criminal justice system, including the juvenile system, is public safety.''
West said that under the Gilmore commission's plan, the additional discretion for prosecutors still would be subject to a judge's review.
She also said she sees many areas of agreement between the two commissions. ``I don't think we're as far apart as people are trying to paint us,'' she said.
A third state group, the Joint Legislative and Review Commission, also is analyzing data from juvenile courts across the state. Its findings, due in November, should aid the work of the two commissions.
Next week, Gilmore's group will sponsor public hearings in Richmond and Virginia Beach on juvenile-justice reform.
During the summer, The Virginian-Pilot conducted community conversations around the state to discuss topics like crime. In one of those, Jane Baum of Virginia Beach said: ``We should quit trying to put Band-Aids on little issues and fix the problem, go to the root of the problem. The root of our problem for Virginia is our educational system. We won't need the prisons if we put more money into the educational system, because you will get the kids interested in other things besides crime.''
In a meeting on Friday, Jones' commission released its draft recommendations for change to the juvenile system. The major suggestions included:
Extending commitment for serious juvenile offenders to age 25.
Changing the law regarding serious juvenile offenders to include those with a previous felony conviction carrying a sentence of 20 or more years.
Increasing the sanctions for skipping school for both students and their parents or guardians.
Requiring parents to accompany their children to all court hearings.
Imposing court penalties on parents who are unable to show that they took reasonable steps to control the conduct of their child.
Clarifying the law so that crime victims can be present in all phases of Juvenile Court proceedings.
Changing the law so that adults or juveniles charged with a crime will not have the right to waive a public hearing.
Requiring the court to notify victims about annual review hearings of serious juvenile offenders.
Linda Nablo, senior policy analyst with the Action Alliance for Virginia's Children and Youth, said she was happy to see that Jones' commission emphasized community and prevention programs.
Nablo, who is monitoring the work of both commissions, also was encouraged by the results of the citizen poll.
``I'm pleased to see that the general public in Virginia still supports the concept of rehabilitation of juvenile offenders,'' she said. ``I would think this would be of great interest to the members of the Governor's Commission. I'm sure they'll be looking very closely because the public doesn't seem to support an emphasis on punishment as the primary answer to dealing with juvenile crime.'' MEMO: COMING SUNDAY: Virginians consider crime a pre-eminent public issue, but
they see violence mostly as a product of failed schools and families and
a lack of quality jobs.
FINDINGS
Two bipartisan commissions are studying juvenile justice reform in
Virginia. One is chaired by Attorney General James Gilmore, a
Republican. The other is chaired by Norfolk Del. Jerrauld Jones, a
Democrat. Results of two extensive surveys commissioned by Jones' group,
and made public Friday, differed in some areas from the Gilmore
commission's recommendations:
Should juvenile justice reform in Virginia emphasize public safety
and punishment or rehabilitation?
The Gilmore commission: Has recommended amending the juvenile code so
that public safety, not rehabilitation, is the primary goal of the
juvenile justice system.
The public: In a survey of 811 Virginians, 68 percent said if they
could choose only one approach to solving the youth crime problem, they
would choose either prevention or rehabilitation; 12 percent said they
would choose punishment.
The experts: In a survey of 1,856 experts, 71 percent said the
functions of the juvenile justice system should not be prioritized to
rank one above the others.
Should judges or prosecutors decide whether to try serious juvenile
offenders as adults?
The Gilmore commission: Would give prosecutors more authority to
charge juveniles as adults.
The public: Four in five respondents said judges, not prosecutors,
should decide.
The experts: 68 percent said that judges, not prosecutors, should
decide.
KEYWORDS: JUVENILE CRIME STUDY SURVEY by CNB