I guess it’s OK to do this, couldn’t get it to link right.
USA TODAY - AUGUST 25, 1999
Juveniles deserve a second chance
By Terence Hallinan
When I was a teen-ager, I was kicked out of school and arrested several times for fighting. A
juvenile court judge eventually got so tired of my misbehavior that he literally kicked me out of
my home county of Marin, Calif.
During my “banishment,” I worked as a longshoreman and attended the University of California,
Berkeley. There I was able to channel my pugilistic ways into a spot on the varsity boxing team,
falling two bouts short of making the U.S. Olympic team. Over time – which is what the juvenile
court gave me – I went on to practice law for 20 years, was elected to two terms on the San
Francisco Board of Supervisors and, in 1996, was elected San Francisco’s district attorney.
Since I took office, violent juvenile crime is down 27% in San Francisco – the sharpest decline
of any large county in the state.
A unique perspective on court system
Yes, I appreciate the irony. But as a prosecutor and a graduate of the juvenile court system, I also
believe I have a unique perspective on the court’s operation – and a personal investment in
maintaining its core tenets.
Founded 100 years ago by a group of reform-minded women led by Chicago’s Jane Addams, the
juvenile court was part of a series of century-shaping changes in how our country viewed
childhood. Others included compulsory, universal education, child labor laws and the creation
of parks and recreation spaces for children.
The court’s founders viewed childhood as a sacred time during which adolescents needed the
guidance of caring adults. They were shocked to find at the time that hundreds of children as
young as 8 were jailed alongside adults. So they fashioned a court that separated kids from
adults, focused on individual care and rehabilitation, as well as fair punishment, and maintained
youths’ confidentiality so that youthful indiscretions didn’t ruin adult promise.
Yet, as it celebrates its centennial, this American invention never has been in more jeopardy. A
juvenile crime bill sponsored by Rep. Bill McCollum, R-Fla., would allow 13-year-olds to be
jailed with adults, would curtail confidentiality protections, would create a mandatory
sentencing scheme for kids, and would give prosecutors sole discretion, with no judicial
oversight, to try juveniles as adults in federal court.
Likewise, an initiative on California’s 2000 ballot sponsored by former governor Pete Wilson
would also strip judges of decision-making power over whether certain juveniles should be tried
as adults, and abolish confidentiality protections. These proposals follow actions by 41 states
that passed laws between 1992 and 1995 making it easier for kids to be tried as adults.
There is no question that many of us profiled in the new book Second Chances simply would not
be where we are today if such laws were in effect when we were young. The book, published by
the Justice Policy Institute, a criminal justice think tank, recounts the stories of 25 juvenile court
“graduates.” They include politicians and probation officers; academics, attorneys and authors;
students, stockbrokers and salespeople; firefighters and football players; and judges and juvenile
counselors. As kids, every one of us was in trouble with the law; as adults, we’re all productive,
successful contributors to society.
Don’t take away discretion from judges
Permanently staining the lives of young people due to youthful arrests is harmful and
counterproductive. Taking discretion away from judges to make individual decisions about
young people is a form of cookie-cutter justice that ignores their problems and strengths, to
everyone’s detriment. And jailing young people with adults is inhumane, dangerous and
tantamount to giving up on kids – something we should never do.
In San Francisco, we’ve taken a bite out of juvenile crime through a balanced approach that
combines community-based programs to help kids turn their lives around with fair but certain
prosecution of youthful offenders. I have no problem fighting to lock up a kid or to have him tried
as an adult if it is necessary to protect public safety. I also have no problem letting a neutral
judge make the final decision after having heard all of the evidence. But a system that focuses
only on punishment and ignores rehabilitation is ineffective and morally bankrupt.
On its 100th anniversary, we need to reinvigorate our juvenile court system so that it can address
today’s problems with solutions relevant to the 21st century, not hamstring them. Juvenile courts
should hold youths accountable for their behavior without crippling them forlife. They should
continue to give kids a chance to make a better choice – the same chance that I and countless
other young Americans had during this century.
Terence Hallinan is the district attorney of the city and county of San Francisco.