Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier's take on the current crime spree is that murder victims and suspects have in common previous run-ins with the law. Twenty-one of the homicide arrestees, she reported, were under supervision pending trial or on probation or parole at the time of the crime. Twenty-six of the murder victims were under court supervision. Ten individuals involved in homicides this year had previous homicide charges but were back on the streets. Six homicide victims had prior murder charges, she said. And almost half, or 45 percent, of the homicide arrestees had prior gun-related arrests.
[T]he city's Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services (DYRS) is responsible for the supervision, custody and care of juveniles charged or convicted ("adjudicated" being the operative term) of a crime.
DYRS knows whether the adult victims and suspects were ever under the city's supervision when they were juveniles. But, as Lanier indicated, DYRS won't share that kind of information, even with the police. So the justice system doesn't really know the role played by juvenile offenders in the larger crime problem.
This is known, based upon DYRS's 2014 progress report:
Nearly 30 percent of DYRS youth from 2011 to 2014 were rearrested; 40 percent were convicted of crimes within one year of being released to the community. Did their lives miraculously change at age 18?
When we let them loose, the results are a quick -- sometimes immediate -- return to crime. There is no polite way to put this, and no sensible way to ignore it.
I contacted D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine, the city's prosecuting authority in juvenile cases. Racine advised that there are "legally imposed restrictions regarding the information we may disclose about juveniles."
In other words, we intentionally blind ourselves to information we need to stay safe, and sometimes even to stay alive.
We can, however, tell you that of the 61 defendants who have been arrested for homicides so far this year (based upon information obtained from [the police department]), 27 have some prior involvement with the juvenile-justice system. We can also tell you that one of these individuals was on juvenile probation at the time that the charged homicide occurred. Regarding information about the victims of homicides, we do not, at this time, have sufficient information to provide you with data regarding their involvement with the juvenile-justice system."
Will Congress enact legislation to promote less incarceration when, sitting about four inches outside its front door, there is overwhelming evidence that insufficient incarceration as things stand right now is mortally dangerous?
Stay tuned.
Yes it does. As the Petit family unfortunately discovered.
For what offenses were the 26 on court supervision? That matters a great deal -- unless of course you believe that no one arrested for any crime should ever qualify for bail and that no one convicted of any crime should ever qualify for probation or parole -- in other words, if you believe the entire idea of community supervision is meritless. (I would not be surprised if you do hold this view.)
And it's terrifying and telling that a number of these current suspects had previous homicide charges (according to the DC chief), and that so many apparently had prior gun-related arrests. But arrests and charges are not convictions. It sounds like you're arguing for incarceration whether or not the evidence exists to support that outcome, and I'm not sure many Americans favor the elimination of the presumption of innocence.
1. The story does not give the breakdown of offenses for which the 21 (not 26) were on court supervision. But it is impossible realistically to believe that the great majority had committed anything other than serious crimes -- either hard drugs or crimes of violence.
2. It is true that arrests and charges are not convictions, but (1) they can become convictions (the system being incredibly slow, particularly in DC); (2) because of plea bargaining, convictions are very often for a lesser offense than what the defendant actually did; and (3) it's hard to get a conviction in a DC murder case, because, given the level of gang violence and intimidation, witnesses refuse to testify, fearing for their lives.
3. Trying to dismiss the import of this story might be neat from a debater's point of view, but that is not what I'm interested in. What the story shows is exactly what I said: Black lives can be saved and would have been saved if we had more reliance on incarceration and less on toothless (if not often practically non-existent) things like "court supervision," "probation," and "parole."
The idea that the system will be improved by relying more on things this story shows don't work -- and indeed are dangerous -- is preposterous. It will be lethal. It already has been. And this is a story about only one city over one small segment of time. The extent of the damage nationwide boggles the mind.
4. I have allowed this comment to be published because, through a certain degree of belligerence, it asks fair questions. For the future, please note that this is a moderated blog. Comments heavy on hostility, rudeness, assuming an opponent's position, snark, condescension or a superior attitude run the risk of not being published. There are dozens of unmoderated blogs where you can say anything you want any way you want; and of course you can write your own blog. This blog is CJLF's private property, and is subject to its rules and standards.
I don't expect you to publish this follow-up comment because it points out something you may not like, but you regularly traffic in hostility, rudeness, assuming an opponent's position, snark, condescension and a superior attitude. (Anyone who favors a sentence reduction, for example, is "pro-criminal.") It is a shame that the standards you set for your posts and for your readers' comments are not the same.
1. It's telling that you don't in any way dispute my characterizations of your comments, and settle to respond, "But JOHNNY does it!"
2. When a person consistently takes the side of the criminal, then it is accurate to say that he is "pro-criminal," (just as it is accurate to say that, as a general matter, I am "pro-prosecution").
When you choose your team, you wear the team jersey.
3. Contrary to your false implication, whether a comment gets published does not depend on whether I "like" it. It depends on whether, overall, it meets the standards of the blog (as your first one did and dozens of comments I don't "like" do).
4. If you care to continue commenting on this thread, please confine yourself to the substance of the issue raised by this post. As I noted, if you want to start your own blog with different standards, you are perfectly free to do so.