THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, July 21, 1996 TAG: 9607190604
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J1 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Discussion '96
SOURCE: By TONY WHARTON, STAFF WRITER
LENGTH: 143 lines
Last week, Commentary published an article about the problem of juvenile crime. It outlined three views on how Americans could deal with the problem, and what the consequences and trade-offs of those views might be.
Some of you wrote, called and e-mailed us with your responses. It wasn't an avalanche - perhaps two dozen calls, several pieces of e-mail and a few letters - but it was very thoughtful. We noticed.
We particularly took notice when the letter from Theresa M. Hoggard of Chesapeake arrived. She's a single mother with two sons, 11 and 19 years old. She used to be on welfare, but she's off of it now. She has a job, and the three of them live with the boys' grandparents.
Children of single parents are often considered a source of the juvenile crime problem by politicians and others. But Theresa Hoggard reminded us, eloquently and passionately, that it is dangerous to label groups of people. Every picture tells a story, and each is unique.
There were themes that ran from Hoggard's letter through the other responses we received:
You can't isolate the problem. Juvenile crime is connected to many other things, some of which are rarely mentioned in the same breath. That's something politicians and journalists do, try to separate issues into little cubbyholes, but most people don't.
So, as Hoggard pointed out, it would be easier for single parents to raise their children well if their pay kept pace better with the cost of living. To Hoggard, that means raising the minimum wage. Not everyone agrees with that, of course.
Raymond V. Cicirelli of Portsmouth feels juvenile crime is related to the issue of teaching right and wrong in the schools. Others pointed to the importance of recreation and other activities to keep children out of trouble.
Responsibility starts with the family. Over and over, that concern came through. If the family doesn't take responsibility, and doesn't teach responsibility, that's where it all breaks down.
It was the first view presented last week, and most of those who responded said it's the only view that matters in the long run. Punishment or government programs can only patch the potholes in society.
Norfolk's Jesse Baird said, ``I don't think families are doing enough to keep their children out of trouble.'' To Elizabeth Jordan of Virginia Beach, one form of prevention is counseling family values, ``especially to those deprived souls that have no family.''
Families need to stay together. Theresa Hoggard said of her sons' grandparents, ``If it weren't for them, then who knows where we would be in this world.''
American society has often valued breaking away from your family, moving somewhere else, showing your independence. But some think we may have gone too far in that direction. Author Mary Pipher, for instance, has called for people to seek out their extended families and preserve family rituals as a way to buffer them against the pressures of society.
All of this suggests there are other questions we still need to address. For instance:
How do we protect and expand family responsibility, without government intervention and without unduly restricting individual freedom?
Does government have a role? What is it?
What can each of us do, whether we have children or not? [Side bar to the story]
I would like to make my voice heard for prevention. If all agree that the contributing factors include poverty, guns and a lack of values, where's the sense in placing all or most of the emphasis on punishment? Wouldn't we rather prevent crime than punish it? Wouldn't we rather remove the guns, and counsel on ``family values,'' especially to those deprived souls that have no family? Thank you.
Elizabeth Jordan
Virginia Beach
I thought the article was very well-written. I think some other questions could have been answered. For instance, what other activities could you have for kids to keep crime down?
Tracy Patton
Virginia Beach
I have a tendency to go along with what President Clinton is saying on this. We have to realize that with young people today, these problems have existed for a long time, in reference to families not taking responsibility, both parents working, and children being deprived because they don't have enough money or any recreational facilities.
Robert Carter
Norfolk
I think this issue needs stronger emphasis. I don't think families are doing enough to keep their children out of trouble. They don't know where their children are, they let them out at all hours of the night. They should be held accountable for what their children do.
Jesse Baird
Norfolk
To me it's a rather straightforward answer. Society has to settle on what standards it wants children to meet and then educate the children on those standards. It has to teach that actions have consequences.
Bob Armour
Virginia Beach
I think the dusk-to-dawn curfew for kids is not fair because kids have the right to go places no matter what the time is. It's just not fair.
Gordon Marx
Virginia Beach
In response to the Commentary on ``Kids In Trouble,'' there is no single solution for every case. I don't see how ``family responsibility,'' ``tougher punishment,'' or ``preventive programs'' can improve juvenile crime if only one approach is used. A combination of all three is needed.
But the combination needed should be determined for each case; preferably by the judge, perhaps with the assistance of a panel representing each area. One particular juvenile may need punishment and a preventive program. If a boot camp is available it could do both. Another juvenile may need to be released to his or her parents and required to follow a specified course of action. The point is that the judge should have some guidelines, various options, and some discretion to choose the most likely program for the particular juvenile.
Under the ``family responsibility'' approach you stated that school programs should be expanded to help children distinguish between right and wrong. This used to be done, but the emphasis on the separation of church and state seemed to confuse or frighten some teachers and school administrations. Morality, teaching right from wrong, is not only within the purview of religion; it also belongs in the schools.
Under ``tougher punishment'' you mentioned replacing rehabilitation programs with punishment programs, including boot camps. I think boot camps could provide both punishment and rehabilitation.
Under ``preventive programs'': Perhaps we can use the existing programs better, more effectively! The solution isn't always to make it bigger or to add more money. Perhaps we need to make the professionals more accountable for what they do; perhaps we need to stop the programs that aren't working and emphasize the ones that work.
You mentioned that we must fulfill our obligation to provide an equal education for everyone. I think this is a slight misstatement. We should only be obligated to provide access to an equal education for all students. What the student does with this access is up to the student.
The people who are experienced in each of these areas need to work together to try to determine how these programs can complement each other and perhaps produce a combination program that would be better than any single one. We can no longer afford separate and independent programs trying to solve or reduce juvenile crime. We need to work together, keep track of successes and failures, so that we know what does and doesn't work.
Raymond V. Cicirelli
Portsmouth
KEYWORDS: JUVENILE CRIME LETTERS FEEDBACK by CNB