[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 12 (Friday, January 20, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E149-E150]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


           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.


                          ____________________