Conway Companies
Financial, Real Estate, Insurance, Restaurant & Lodging
Juvenile justice law takes effect -- sort ofBy Leslie Miller, Associated Press writer
BOSTON -- Matthew Irving, a 15-year-old from Stoughton, was found guilty of pressing a switchblade against the throats of several smaller boys, taking $2 from each of them and ordering them to take off their pants.
Irving was tried as an adult because he was over 14 and had committed a previous felony -- his rap sheet included breaking and entering, receiving a stolen gun and vandalizing a synagogue.
Under the state's new juvenile offender law, he could have been sentenced to life in prison. But a judge ordered him sent to a juvenile detention facility until he turns 21, and suspended a subsequent one-year prison sentence.
When Massachusetts' juvenile offender law was enacted on Oct. 1, 1996, critics worried it took away a judge's discretion. They feared it would result in kids like Irving spending their lives in prison, punishments that didn't fit the crimes.
On the other hand, the bill's supporters touted it as a major weapon in the fight against juvenile crime.
It has turned out to be neither.
Judges are still sentencing most children over 14 to lesser sentences than adults, while a few dozen of the state's most violent teen-agers are getting grown-up prison sentences.
"You're still giving the judges and prosecutors discretion," said Jack McDevit, professor of criminal justice at Northeastern University. "There's been no miscarriage of justice."
But, he said, some of the cities' serious young gang leaders are getting put away longer because of the law.
"If he's 15, and in the criminal justice system on a serious murder, rape, or crime that falls under the statute, it gives you an opportunity to put the kid away," said McDevit. "But to view it as any sort of solution to juvenile crime is a mistake."
For other than violent offenders, the impact has been slight.
"Look at these changes in the law, look at them as effective with violent offenders," said one of the bill's sponsors, Sen. William Keating, D-Sharon. "Don't look at them as the major approach that's going to be effective in curbing juvenile crime."
Citing FBI figures predicting a doubling of juvenile crime over the next 10 years, Keating said much more needs to be done to fight the problem.
"One major locomotive for juvenile crime is the violence in families," he said. "That's where we should continue to focus. It's not a simple issue."
Until Oct. 1996, Massachusetts law required children under 17 to be tried in juvenile court -- unless a judge ruled otherwise in a transfer hearing.
The Massachusetts system also allowed a juvenile accused of murder to be tried by a judge and have the option for a second trial by jury if he or she didn't like the judge's verdict.
It was a system, said then-Gov. William Weld, that handled "cold-blooded killers with kid gloves."
A hulking 15-year-old killer from Somerville changed all that.
In July 1995, police arrested Edward O'Brien, a 6-foot-4, 250-pound former altar boy, and charged him with savagely slashing his best friend's mother to death.
When a judge refused to order him tried in adult court, the public reacted with outrage at the possibility that O'Brien would be convicted in juvenile court and set free at 30.
The Legislature swiftly passed a bill requiring all juveniles over 14 charged with murder or a second felony to be tried in adult court.
O'Brien was convicted of first-degree murder, even though the new law didn't apply to him.
Since the so-called "Eddie O'Brien Law" took effect, many more juveniles have been tried as adults -- but only a handful have received adult sentences.
In 1995, fewer than 10 percent of the 192 juveniles defended at transfer hearings were tried as adults under the old law.
In the first year of the Eddie O'Brien law -- Oct. 1, 1996 to Oct. 1, 1997 -- 356 juveniles were indicted as adults.
But of the 190 cases that have been resolved, only 23 juveniles have received adult sentences. Another 23 were committed to Department of Youth Services custody until 21 and then had to serve out the rest of their sentence in prison.
By contrast, 93 were sent to juvenile facilities until they reached 21. The rest were either sent to DYS custody until age 18 or had their cases dismissed or continued.
|  |
____________ T O D A Y 'S N E W S
Local
Almanac
____________
|
| -Top- | -Home- | -Top Stories- | -Headlines- | -Staff- |  |