Tuesday, February 16, 1999
Tune-up due for juvenile law
Experts find faults in '96 legislation
BY MICHAEL HAWTHORNE
Enquirer Columbus Bureau
COLUMBUS — Three years ago, state lawmakers tried to crack down on juvenile crime by ordering judges to lock up more young offenders in adult prisons.
The slogan “adult crime means adult time” sounded great to lawmakers seeking re-election, but judges, defense attorneys and scholars contend the law ended up mak ing it easier for some juvenile offenders to escape punishment.
Adult prisons also serve as training grounds that can make youngsters more savvy and serious criminals once they're back on the streets, critics say.
Stopping short of saying the 1996 law failed, judges and others in Ohio's juvenile justice system are pushing this year for another sweeping overhaul that could cost taxpayers millions by keeping more youths in juvenile detention for longer periods.
“I don't think we do a good job when we send young offenders to adult court,” said Judge Sylvia Hendon of Hamil ton County Juvenile Court. “This would put the emphasis back on rehabilitation and on keeping kids from becoming adult criminals.”
Under proposals being debated by a state commission:
• Young offenders could be held in juvenile prisons until age 25, up from the current limit of age 21.
• Judges could impose juvenile and adult sentences for the same offender.
• Adult sentences would be suspended but could take effect for youths who fail to make progress in juvenile prisons, which offer more educational programs, treatment and counseling than the adult system.
Juvenile crime is on the decline in Ohio and across the country, but stories such as those about teen-age killers in Paducah, Ky., and Jonesboro, Ark., have prompted calls for tougher laws from citizens and legislators.
Moreover, the decline follows years of increases. Juvenile arrests jumped 20 percent in Ohio between 1987 and 1996.
Gov. Bob Taft and leaders of the GOP-controlled General Assembly deny the current law failed to work, but they have made the proposed changes one of their top priorities.
“We frankly were reacting to concerns expressed by our constituents that juveniles weren't spending enough time locked up,” said Senate President Richard Finan, R-Evendale. “Those concerns don't go away.”
The 1996 law was intended to reduce violent juvenile crime but Judge Hendon and others say young offenders and society would be better served if some youths were kept longer in juvenile detention.
They also might serve more time than if they had been transferred — bound over — to adult court.
An October 1997 investigation by the Enquirer found that one-third of 577 Hamilton County juveniles bound over and convicted in adult court since 1989 received probation. More than half of the 138 juveniles bound over in 1989 and 1990 went on to commit another felony.
Some youths requested bindovers to adult court because they knew they could plead guilty to a lesser crime or plea bargain in exchange for a lighter sentence, the Enquirer found.
“Too many kids who could be amenable to treatment in the juvenile system are being forced into the adult system,” said Ron Huff, a criminal justice professor at Ohio State University. “The public needs to think about what these kids are going to be like when they get out.”
Mr. Huff, who is completing a statewide study of juvenile bindovers to adult court, said current law doesn't give judges discretion to base sentences on the facts of each case.
For instance, the 1996 law requires the transfer to adult court of all 16- or 17-year olds who possess a firearm during a robbery. Bindovers for aggravated robbery jumped by more than 122 percent during the year after the law took effect, according to the state Department of Youth Services (DYS).
Some youngsters also have been bound over for misdemeanors, Judge Hendon said.
Critics say they understand the desire of lawmakers and citizens to make punishment fit the crimes committed by youths but they contend DYS is better equipped to handle young offenders than adult prisons.
Imposing a blended sentence that threatens youths with time in the adult system if they don't make progress in juvenile detention provides another incentive for kids to clean up their lives, advocates say.
(Youths charged with serious violent crimes such as murder or attempted murder still would be subject to mandatory bindovers to adult court.)
“We're as tough as anybody else,” said Geno Natalucci-Persichetti, DYS director, “but we also recognize that we need to provide services to juveniles to try to stop them from becoming adult criminals.”
Lawmakers are waiting for recommendations from the Ohio Criminal Sentencing Commission before embarking on an overhaul of the juvenile justice system.
Among unresolved questions are costs of the changes and procedural changes required if blended sentences were adopted.
Nine juvenile prisons and two treatment centers operated by the state cost about twice as much to operate as adult institutions.
The juvenile system has a smaller inmate-to-staff ratio and offers more drug treatment and counseling than the adult system.
Keeping more youths locked up in the juvenile system for longer periods could cost millions but nobody is sure how much. “Your guess is as good as mine at this point,” said Carol Rapp Zimmerman, DYS assistant director.
Moreover, imposing an adult sentence on a juvenile, even if it were suspended, could require the state to afford youths rights they currently don't enjoy in the juvenile system, such as the ability to post bail or request a jury trial.
There also would need to be a hearing to decide if a youth should be transferred to adult prison after completing his juvenile sentence.
“There is general agreement that mandatory bindovers aren't a fair way to proceed, but there still are quite a few issues to be addressed,” said Yeura Venters, a Franklin County public defender and member of the sentencing commission.
Some youths welcome transfers to the adult system because they think it will result in a lighter sentence but three youths incarcerated at a Columbus detention center say they prefer being locked up in a DYS facility.
They agreed to be interviewed only if their middle names were used.
Drew, a 20-year-old from Cleveland serving five years for felonious assault, doubts he would have obtained his high school equivalency degree or barber's license if he had been sent to an adult prison. “I fell in with a group of fellas that was selling drugs and didn't realize there was more to life. Being in here gave me a more structured outlook.”
Said Lee, a 20-year-old West Virginian serving four years for aggravated robbery, “I weighed 150 pounds when I got busted. I don't think I would have survived in the adult system.”
Echoing concerns expressed by defense attorneys, 19-year-old Ramon wondered if blended sentences are merely a new method to move young offenders into adult prisons.
“How many of us are they really going to let out after our time in DYS is over?” asked Ramon, a Columbus resident serving 18 months for aggravated assault. ""This sounds better than what we've got now, but it may just be a way to keep teen-agers locked up.”
Competition might rescue public schools
Emptiness invades Erica's house
Planner extols, coaxes Tristate
Officer hurt trying to stop car
Pharmacies running out of new arthritis medication
Backing, fronts shown for Flynt
'Little guy' starts White House run
Ruling awaited on execution
Vigils planned to protest execution
Adams Co. ponders monuments
Mom pleads not guilty to manslaughter
Tune-up due for juvenile law
Bar owner loses her head, again
A helping of VeggieTales
Web site aids blind students of science
Clermont man faces charges after 23-mile chase by police
GOP up-and-comer to get 4th District post
Ky. gives funds for riverfront purchase
Mayor resists payroll tax
Middletown sorts mall plans
Oxford takes stock of its historic past
Planners to tackle Bigfoot
Traffic lights go high-tech
TRISTATE DIGEST
