From S. Rept. 105-108

VIOLENT AND REPEAT JUVENILE OFFENDER ACT OF 1997

I. PURPOSE

The purpose of S. 10, the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Act, is to reform the role played by the Federal Government in addressing juvenile crime and delinquency in our Nation. The reform encompassed by this legislation is long overdue. Nearly a quarter century has passed since Congress enacted the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (JJDPA).

Yet, despite periodic reauthorizations and amendments to the JJDPA in succeeding years, no fundamental reassessment of the Federal role or the policies encouraged through the application of Federal resources has taken place. Congressional neglect of this issue has persisted despite profound societal changes that have occurred in the years since the JJDPA was enacted.

These societal changes include the breakdown of the nuclear family, an explosion in the number of single parent households, the prevalence of two wage-earners in two-parent households, and the pervasiveness of coarse and destructive sexual and violent material available in popular culture. The changes in society have been reflected in the changed nature of juvenile crime and delinquency.

When Congress enacted the JJDPA, the commission by juveniles of serious violent crimes such as homicide, rape, and robbery, was a relatively unknown phenomenon. The rate at which juveniles commit such crimes, however, has increased dramatically since that time. In 1994, the number of persons arrested overall for murder in the United States decreased by 5.8 percent, but the number of persons younger than 15 years of age arrested for murder increased by 4 percent. The number of persons arrested for all violent crimes increased by 1.3 percent, while the number of persons younger than 15 years of age arrested for violent crimes increased by 9.2 percent, and the number of persons younger than 18 years of age arrested for such crimes increased by 6.5 percent. From 1985 to 1996, the number of persons arrested for all violent crimes increased by 52.3 percent, while the number of persons under age 18 arrested for violent crimes rose by 75 percent.

These trends are alarming, especially in light of projected demographic trends. The number of juvenile offenders is expected to undergo a massive increase during the first two decades of the 21st century, culminating in an unprecedented number of violent offenders who are younger than 18 years of age.

The current approach of the Federal Government in addressing juvenile crime is inadequate in a number of important areas, including the accountability of juvenile offenders, the maintenance and appropriate use of records of juvenile offenses, and the promotion and evaluation of effective and timely prevention and intervention programs designed to avert serious juvenile crime. It is the purpose of this legislation to reform law and Federal policy to address adequately the shortcomings of current Federal policy.

The Committee has three key goals in recommending this legislation. First and foremost is encouraging policies to ensure accountability for juvenile crime. The Committee wishes to require that young people be held accountable for their criminal or delinquent acts from the start, and intends that accountability stand as a central feature of the Federal juvenile justice system in prosecuting violations of Federal law. The Committee believes that this Nation can no longer afford to wait until a youngster is 15 or 16 years old, or has committed half a dozen or more crimes, before he or she is held accountable for his or her actions. Rather, the Committee believes that better results will be attained, and the commission of more serious crimes by juveniles might be averted, if State, local and Federal governments impose meaningful sanctions for the earliest acts of juvenile crime and delinquency.

Second, the Committee wishes to ensure that the most serious juvenile criminals--those young people who commit adult crimes, such as murder and rape--are punished as adults. No one wants to have to sentence a juvenile to a lengthy prison term. But, if a juvenile has committed a crime as heinous as that committed by the worst adult criminal, the Committee believes that the protection of society requires the imposition of such sanctions.

The Committee also believes that the Federal, State, and the local governments together must ensure that the records of crimes and delinquent acts are maintained and appropriately made available for the protection of society. Records of criminal or delinquent acts committed by juveniles should not be destroyed simply because the offender reaches adulthood. Members of society have a right to know who among them are repeat and violent offenders.

Third, it is the Committee's goal to reform Federal aid to State and local youth crime programs by modifying Federal mandates that, in many instances, have stifled innovative State efforts to address violent youth crime. The Committee also wishes to provide additional Federal resources to the States and local governments to improve programs for the prosecution, incarceration, and treatment of juvenile criminals, for innovative and effective prevention efforts, and for the maintenance, improvement, and distribution of juvenile criminal records, while at the same time streamlining and coordinating diverse Federal efforts.

Consistent with the Committee's goals, the legislation it recommends has three essential components. The first component is the reform of procedures for handling the very few cases each year in which a juvenile is prosecuted for a Federal crime in Federal court. While the number of Federal prosecutions of juveniles each year is tiny in comparison to the gravity of the national problem, we must ensure that these cases are handled appropriately. The Committee also expects that U.S. Attorneys will assist State and local law enforcement by increasing in appropriate cases the number of juvenile prosecutions that are brought by the Federal Government. The legislation that the Committee recommends provides local U.S. Attorneys with discretion to decide whether to prosecute as adults juveniles who commit Federal serious violent or serious drug crimes, and gives the Attorney General discretion to order Federal prosecution as adults of juveniles who commit other Federal felonies. The bill recommended by the Committee will ensure that juveniles who are tried and convicted of Federal crimes as adults serve their full sentences and pay restitution to their victims on the same basis as adult offenders. This legislation will ensure that Federal juvenile criminal records are available to law enforcement, courts, and schools. The legislation also will ensure no Federal juvenile offender is celled with an adult offender.

The second component of the Committee recommendation addresses the increasing national problem of interstate gangs, which frequently recruit juveniles. This component of the bill recommended by the Committee is directed at this menace. It beefs up the Federal anti-gang statute, by permitting Federal prosecution of gang criminals who commit two or more gang-related crimes, such as drug dealing, witness intimidation, extortion, drug money laundering, and drive-by shootings. Convictions will result in a 10-year mandatory minimum penalty and the criminal forfeiture of gang-related assets. The bill also addresses the interstate recruitment of gang members and criminalizes the recruitment of anyone, and especially minors, into criminal gangs.

The third component of the Committee recommendation reauthorizes, reforms and streamlines the JJDPA. This component is premised on the idea that Washington does not always know best, and that Federal assistance should empower States to experiment and make progressive reforms that both get tough on the worst juvenile criminals and deter other young people from getting involved in crime, gangs and drugs. The Committee recommendation maintains, with some modifications, the current State formula grant program, known as part B, for juvenile justice programs. The changes to this program recommended by the Committee place a greater emphasis on accountability-based juvenile justice programs and modify several mandates in current law. For example, the Committee recommends modification of the Federal requirement that States not incarcerate juveniles for status offenses, such as curfew violations. The Committee also believes that the Federal Government should not require the States to ensure that minority youths are only incarcerated in proportion to their representation in the population at large. Rather, the Committee believes that crime control and prevention policies should be race-neutral, and that such efforts should be targeted at those neighborhoods in which the most crime occurs. One condition that the Committee firmly believes must remain a condition on the receipt of Federal assistance to State and local juvenile justice systems, however, is that no juvenile should ever be put in the same cell as an adult prisoner.

The bill that the Committee recommends creates an incentive block grant program for the States to continue enactment of progressive reforms, such as accountability-based juvenile justice systems. These block grants may be used for a multitude of purposes, such as incarceration, graduated sanctions, serious and habitual offender programs, and juvenile criminal record sharing. To qualify for the grants, however, the Committee recommends that States do the following:

(1) treat serious violent juvenile criminals as adults;

(2) make the criminal records of these juveniles available to law enforcement, courts, and schools;

(3) perform drug tests on an appropriate category of juvenile offenders;

(4) use local advisory groups; and

(5) permit religious organizations to participate in grant programs on the same basis as any other private group.

Finally, the Committee recommendation streamlines Federal efforts to stop youth violence by making the renamed Office of Juvenile Crime Control and Accountability (currently, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention) in the Department of Justice responsible for coordinating all Federal programs targeted at juvenile crime. The Office will have the authority to coordinate budgets for all of these programs and will be required to provide Congress with a Federal plan to combat juvenile crime. The Committee finds quite important the need for evaluation of juvenile anticrime programs, in order to help ensure that future Congresses have available more complete information on which programs are effective at preventing and controlling juvenile crime and delinquency.

The Committee recommendation does not reflect a `Washington-knows-best' philosophy. Nor is it a total repudiation of all that has come before. S. 10, as recommended by the Committee, however, does recognize the changes that have occurred in juvenile justice in the last decade.

The Committee believes that the 1974 JJDPA has largely achieved its purpose in improving the conditions of detention and incarceration of juveniles. Moreover, the Committee has confidence in the States' abilities to utilize sound juvenile correctional policies. Thus, in the Committee's view, it is time to change the focus of the JJDPA, to reflect these successes and provide assistance and encouragement to the States in other areas of juvenile justice policy, including accountability based sanctions, improvement of criminal history records, and drug testing to assess and reduce the use of illegal drugs as a factor in juvenile crime.

The Committee does not believe that anything in S. 10 should be viewed as an indictment of State and local efforts in combating serious and violent juvenile crime. Indeed, the States for several years have been far ahead of the Federal Government in implementing innovative reforms of their juvenile justice systems. For example, between 1992 and 1996, of the 50 States and the District of Columbia, 48 made substantive changes to their juvenile justice systems.1

[Footnote]

[Footnote] 1U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, `State Responses to Serious and Violent Juvenile Crime,' July 1996 (hereinafter, `State Responses,'), at xv.

Among the trends in State law changes are the removal of more serious and violent offenders from the juvenile justice system, in favor of criminal court prosecution; new and innovative disposition/sentencing options for juveniles; and the revision, in favor of openness, of traditional confidentiality provisions relating to juvenile proceedings and records.2

[Footnote] As the OJJDP noted in July, 1996,

[Footnote] 2Id. at xi.

These trends represent both a reaction to the increasingly serious nature of juvenile crime and a fundamental shift in juvenile justice philosophy. * * * Inherent in many of the changes is the belief that serious and violent juvenile offenders must be held more accountable for their actions. * * * Toward that end, dispositions are to be offense based rather than offender based, with the goal of punishment as opposed to rehabilitation.

The trend toward redefining the purpose of the juvenile justice system represents a fundamental philosophical departure, particularly in the handling of serious and violent juvenile offenders. This change has resulted in dramatic shifts in the areas of jurisdiction, sentencing, correctional programming, confidentiality, and victims of crime.3

[Footnote]

[Footnote] 3Id.

While the States have been making fundamental changes in their approaches to juvenile justice, however, the Federal Government has made no significant change to its approach and has done little to encourage State and local reform.4

[Footnote] Thus, the juvenile justice terrain has shifted beneath the Federal Government, leaving its programs an policies out of step and in major part irrelevant to the needs of State and local governments. It is the Committee's intent in recommending enactment of S. 10 to correct this imbalance between State and Federal juvenile justice policy, and ensure that Federal programs support the needs of State and local governments.

[Footnote] 4For instance, the major Federal enactment relating to crime during this period, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law No. 103-322, 108 Stat. 1796 (Sept. 13, 1994)), made only modest changes to the Federal juvenile code and, although it included authorization for numerous programs intended to prevent crime, few (if any) of these programs could be described as supporting the types of reforms being enacted by the States.

THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT GO TO Next Hit Forward New Search Prev Hit Back HomePage Hit List Best Sections Help Doc Contents