|
U.S. teens face rash of get-tough actions as
nation's fear grows
By JOHN L. ALLEN, JR.
Special to the National Catholic Reporter
One evening last summer, 16-year-old Asha Sidhu and her boyfriend
were saying good night. Feeling awkward in front of Asha's younger brother and
sister, they received permission from Asha's mom, Amber, to sit in their car a
couple of blocks away.
Shortly after, a member of the San Diego Police Department pulled
up. In an earlier era, the officer might have shone a flashlight in the car and
waved the kids home, but not this time: It was after 10 p.m., and Asha was in
violation of San Diego's new curfew ordinance. The officer arrested her on the
spot.
"I didn't know where my daughter was for hours," said Amber. "I
was panic-stricken." To make matters worse, the family had gone rock-climbing
the day before, leaving Asha's fingertips roughened. While in custody, the
police accused her of using acid to remove her prints, and subjected her to
interrogation about various crimes. Asha, an honors student, was eventually
released, but her mother still seethes over the incident. "Why couldn't the
officer have just brought her home and asked me what was going on?" she
asked.
Getting tough
The answer lies, at least partly, in the get-tough approach to
teenagers that has swept America in the past decade. A national mood of concern
about youth crime, coupled with demographic projections showing a boom in the
teenage population, have given rise to a host of measures designed to crack
down on kids. Consider these signs of the times:
- Cities are dusting off existing youth curfew ordinances or
writing new ones at breakneck speed. Indeed, the lust for action is sometimes
so overwhelming that elected officials don't even bother to check the statute
books to see what's already there. One New Jersey city council has passed a
curfew ordinance three times, each time forgetting about its previous vote.
- Increasingly, states are treating juvenile offenders as adults,
and the federal government is also getting in on the act. The 1994 Crime Bill
expanded federal authority to prosecute juveniles as adults despite research
showing that placing juveniles in the hands of the adult system actually makes
them more likely to commit serious crimes later.
- Youth boot camps are growing in popularity. Florida leads the
nation with six fully operational sites. The camps emphasize military-style
discipline and a punitive approach to misbehavior.
- Zero-tolerance policing is being practiced in many communities,
a program in which police do not tolerate even minor infractions by teenagers
(such as having a radio up too loud). The result in some inner-city
neighborhoods is nearly constant police supervision.
- In perhaps the most extreme example of this get-tough trend,
several states, including Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi and California, have
considered legislation authorizing paddling as a response to juvenile
crime.
The California ordinance, which passed two Assembly committees
before narrowly losing on the floor, would have required the paddling to be
administered by a parent in front of a judge, with the bailiff ready to step in
should the parent prove insufficiently energetic.
Taken together, these measures express America's growing fear of
its own children. A 1994 Gallup Poll revealed that the average adult believes
juveniles commit 43 percent of violent crimes, when the actual figure is just
13 percent.
Politically appealing
Given this national alarm, it's no surprise that get-tough
measures enjoy political appeal. Youth advocates are worried about their
long-term consequences, however, not just for those teens caught up in a
juvenile justice system now more interested in punishment than rehabilitation,
but also for the vast majority of non-offending adolescents whose real needs
are ignored by a law-and-order emphasis.
Despite concerns about the dangers of a punitive approach, no one
disputes that youth crime is a serious problem. "During a six-year period from
1985 to 1991, the rate of homicide committed by 13 and 14 year-old boys was up
157 percent; the rate of homicide committed by 15-year-old boys was up 212
percent," said Jack Levin, director of the program for the study of violence
and conflict at Northeastern University. "These statistics tell us that
something's wrong."
The National Center for Injury Prevention and Control in Atlanta
reports that arrest rates for homicide among youth 14-17 years of age increased
41 percent between 1989 and 1994, compared to a decline of 25 percent for
adults during the same period.
Making these figures all the more alarming for advocates of a
crackdown on youth violence is the projected spike in the teenage population
over the next 15 years. The number of 14- to 17-year-olds in America is
expected to rise from 14.6 million in 1995 to 17.4 million by 2010, a 19
percent increase, according to Census Bureau data.
This trend has prompted speculation about a future in which hordes
of "super-predator" teenagers fill hospitals and morgues with their victims, an
apocalyptic scenario that has generated strong popular support for get-tough
approaches. In one telling development, the Democratic speaker of the New York
State Assembly, Sheldon Silver, recently reversed his long-standing opposition
to punitive measures for kids. In fact, Silver has gone even farther than his
Republican critics in insisting that every juvenile offender, no matter how
trivial the crime nor how understandable the motives, must receive some "taste
of punishment."
Supporters of this approach point to the most recent statistics,
which suggest a downturn in juvenile crime. From 1993 to 1995, juvenile
homicides fell 10 percent nationally. Dr. Deborah Prothrow-Stith of the Harvard
school of public health agrees that the most recent news is encouraging,
pointing to Boston, which has not had a single juvenile homicide this year.
Just three years ago, it had 16. Advocates of curfews, paddling and the like
see in these numbers a vindication of the deterrent value of swift and sure
punishment.
A little guidance
Others, however, are not so sure. "A lot of the get-tough stuff
works, but not for the reason that people think," Levin said. "It's not that
they're so tough, not that they're punitive, it's that they supervise
youngsters. For the first time, we're actually paying attention to what
teenagers do. We're giving them a little guidance, supervision, control. ...
For the first time in 20 years, we're giving them direction for their lives,
providing them with role models," he said.
Levin's analysis points to the force many observers see as the
root of teen crime: the withdrawal of adults, especially parents, from the
lives of children. "Teenagers today lack the stability that only strong adult
role models can provide," said Fr. Michael Scully, pastor of St. Joseph's
Parish in Hays, Kan., and author of several books on youth ministry. "Adults
have to take an interest."
Levin agrees. "For 20 to 25 years, we have permitted our teenagers
to raise themselves," he said, citing that 57 percent of children lack
full-time adult supervision. A lack of concern on the part of the adult
population, Levin argues, and not anything inherently evil about this
generation of teenagers, has produced such high youth crime numbers.
By the same logic, the get-tough approach works because it signals
a return of interest, albeit driven by fear, on the part of adults in what's
going on in the lives of their teenagers. "For 15 years, thousands of people in
Boston have been working on violence prevention. In general, the community has
made a serious commitment to dealing with the problem and it's paying off,"
said Prothrow-Stith. "This is what's helping, not stricter punishment."
Although any decline in youth crime is good news, observers such
as Levin and Prothrow-Stith worry that if the crackdown mentality gets the
credit for it, Americans may come to believe that the problems of the young can
be solved by a few good, swift kicks, rather than the longer-term, hard work of
rearing them well. Such a belief could bode ill on many fronts.
For one thing, in the present climate, the future is bleak for
those relatively few youngsters who do engage in serious crime. Given that most
of these kids are in the inner city, a law-and-order approach inevitably means
more incarceration for the poor and minorities. It is now possible for a young
person to enter the prison system as a child and never come out.
"The get-tough attitude is going to mean that some individuals
will be under the supervision of the government from the cradle to the grave,"
said Kenneth Adams, a professor of criminology at Sam Houston State University.
"That should worry us." Fr. Scully agreed, saying, "Kids are going to make
mistakes, but we must never desert them."
Restricting liberties
For the vast majority of teens who do not engage in serious
misconduct (according to one statistic, only 0.5 percent of young people commit
violent crimes), the get-tough wave means widespread restrictions on their
civil liberties. Curfews are one example. "The police already have the ability
to arrest teenagers involved in real crime. The curfew adds nothing more than
the obligation to arrest the innocent as well," said Jordan Budd, staff counsel
for the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of San Diego and Imperial
Counties.
In another instance, the Supreme Court has authorized random
drug-testing of students in public schools, overturning an earlier standard
that had required individualized suspicion before such tests could be
administered. In effect, the court held that it's reasonable to suspect all
teenagers of drug use. The cumulative effect of such moves, observers say, is
to convince youth that they are second-class citizens, making them even less
likely to develop a stake in adult society and less likely to respect its
institutions.
According to some experts, the greatest danger of the crackdown
mentality is that it obscures America's vision of what is really needed to help
kids: time, energy and resources. "The get-tough approach is an indication that
we've lost our way, that we don't know what to do," said John Roberto, director
of the Center for Ministry Development in Naugatuck, Conn. "We should focus on
the work that needs to be done to build the assets of young people."
Roberto, whose youth ministry programs serve over 100 dioceses
across the country, said, "The blame-the-kids approach resorts to slogans and
quick fixes. The real answer -- building communities -- is long-term hard
work."
Church efforts succeed
The irony, Roberto points out, is that plenty of well-known
strategies exist to address the problem. He pointed to a recent study by the
Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, which confirmed the success of
several programs designed to nurture healthy young people. "It's not like we
don't know what works. What we need is the will to do it," he said.
Levin agreed that models do exist that point the way to a society
willing to care for its children. He pointed to midnight basketball programs,
gun buy-backs, toy gun buy-backs, active PTA/PTO organizations, peer mediation
programs, programs in which college and university students serve as mentors,
businesses creating summer jobs and community centers as measures with a track
record of success.
Like Roberto, Levin sees will, not ideas, as the problem. "We have
to reach our youngsters before they become criminals," he said. "We have to
spend time with our kids and re-establish the credibility of our institutions
-- our families, our churches, our businesses, our universities, our schools.
That's what we really have to do."
Rebuilding that credibility is both an individual and a social
challenge. Programs such as those called for by Roberto and Levin will cost
money, and given the anti-tax mantra adopted by both Republicans and Democrats
in the most recent election, generating support will be difficult. Even more
important, however, is that adults sacrifice time as well as dollars.
"Teenagers need adults to be involved in their lives," said Fr. Scully. "We
need to figure out where teenagers are coming from," he says, "and only
sustained involvement can make that happen."
"Teens need time and energy from adults. We've pigeonholed it to
the professionals, but everybody has a role to play," said Roberto. He also
argues that the church must be a voice crying in the law-and-order wilderness.
"The church has to take up this call and act more thoroughly. We can be a voice
for young people. If we took up the call for young people, we could make a
sizable difference," he said.
As long as America relies on law enforcement to deal with its
kids, however, the more fundamental issues remain on the back burner. "In
Dallas recently, they conducted a curfew sweep, and for 25 percent of the kids
they could not locate a parent," Adams said. How, he asks, will "get tough"
help solve that problem?
Blame is easy
For a society unwilling to invest the resources necessary to get
at root causes, punitive measures may offer some comfort. "People feel insecure
economically, and so there's resistance to dealing with delinquency through
measures that require an investment, such as education, after-school programs
and the like. In this climate of thought, it's a helpful belief to say 'It's
their fault,' " said Professor Steven Kleinberg, a sociologist at Rice
University.
The current national discussion about youth crime seems to take a
"blame the kids" stance for granted. The terms of the debate boil down to what
hour the curfew should be set (President Clinton favors 8 p.m.), and how many
more jail cells to build. However understandable, Prothrow-Stith sees this
approach as dangerous. "It's like trying to prevent lung cancer with better
chemotherapy, or new surgery techniques," she said. "It can't be done. The
severity of punishment we mete out isn't the issue. We have to get to kids
before the problem develops."
For Levin, it's another analogy that troubles him as he surveys
the adolescent landscape. "Building prisons to fight crime," he said, "is like
building cemeteries to fight disease." Unless America rethinks its approach to
youth issues, observers such as Levin fear, we may need plenty of both.
National Catholic Reporter, January 10,
1997
|
|