THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Saturday, July 1, 1995 TAG: 9507010455
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY JUNE ARNEY, STAFF WRITER
LENGTH: Long : 291 lines
Taking effect today are two changes in Virginia's juvenile law that will give the public and school officials greater access to information about youths accused of serious crimes, another step in the state's campaign to hold young offenders more accountable for their acts.
One law gives judges the authority to make public the names and addresses of youths 14 or older who are charged with violent offenses such as murder, kidnapping and mob violence.
In the past, judges were authorized only to release the names and identifying information of youths convicted of serious offenses who became fugitives.
The second new law requires court staff to notify school superintendents when a youth 14 or older is charged with a serious crime. Previously, such information could be provided only after a conviction.
These changes represent a shift in the philosophy of juvenile justice, experts say.
``The confidentiality change is a major step down a different road as far as what we've done with juvenile proceedings,'' said Del. Gerrauld C. Jones, a longtime advocate of children's issues and the chairman of the Commission on Youth's task force, which is studying juvenile justice in Virginia.
``Now we're saying, `If you're 14, we're going to treat you like you're 24 whether you have the maturity or not,' '' he said. ``In certain situations, there are valid public safety interests that outweigh the privacy interests of the alleged juvenile offender.''
The law providing information to schools is another way of trying to make schools safer, Jones said.
``We want to avoid the scarlet letter, but we want to balance the public safety interests and protect those students who must be in classes next to the allegedly violent offenders,'' Jones said.
Nancy Ross, executive director of the Virginia Commission on Youth, says the most radical feature of the new laws will be the release of names before guilt or innocence is proven.
``Criminal law assumes you have to be found guilty or innocent before there are repercussions in the community,'' she said. ``So (the new juvenile law) doesn't even parallel that.''
The law allowing judges to identify youths charged with violent offenses continues a long-standing tradition of juvenile decisions based on judicial discretion, she said. But the other law breaks from that pattern.
Delegate William S. ``Billy'' Moore Jr., D-Portsmouth, proposed the bill that allows judges to release the names of violent juveniles. A similar version was proposed in the state Senate.
Moore said parents hear about such incidents as the stabbing of a youth on a school bus, yet the identity of those believed responsible is kept secret because of the age of those charged.
``They would feel safer having that information,'' Moore said. ``As a parent of two young males in high school, I'd like to have that information if it affected me and my family.''
Both of the new laws could have made a big difference to 18-year-old David Johnson of Chesapeake if they had been on the books sooner, his parents said.
On Oct. 3, 1994, Derrick Saunders walked up to Johnson and hit him in the mouth, pulling out his braces and knocking out several teeth. Saunders already was in trouble at the time; he had been charged two months earlier with malicious wounding in the shooting of another youth.
The attack on Johnson occurred on the grounds of Indian River High School as he stood at the bus ramp. He heard someone say ``Hey,'' turned around, felt severe pain in his mouth and saw two of his teeth fall to the ground. Someone nearby warned Johnson not to chase his attacker - whom he later found out was Saunders - because they thought he had a gun. Johnson and his attacker did not know one another.
Saunders might not have been on the school grounds if school officials had been notified of the August shooting, in which a .25-caliber bullet struck his friend in the foot as the two walked down Bethel Road in Chesapeake. And Johnson might not have had his teeth knocked out.
``This will affect the rest of his life,'' said Johnson's mother, Joyce Johnson. ``It's hard for me to even send him to school. You never know what's going to happen. This boy hit David for no apparent reason.''
Saunders, 17, was charged and convicted as an adult in both crimes. He pleaded guilty to two counts of malicious wounding in Chesapeake Circuit Court on April 3 but claimed the shooting was an accident. He faces a maximum of five years on each charge and is scheduled for sentencing July 18.
Johnson said that at the time of the attack on her son, police were looking for Saunders on the shooting charge.
``We don't think Derrick should have been in school,'' she said. ``The law was looking for him. If the principal had known, I wouldn't think he would have been in school.
``I think those are going to be good laws.''
But not everyone agrees.
``We still have major concerns about notifying the public or superintendents before the juvenile has had his day in court,'' said Julie McConnell, associated director of the ACLU of Virginia's Richmond office. ``We think it's pretty outrageous. We've gone from trying to rehabilitate them to just assuming they are criminals and that they are going to be criminals for the rest of their lives.''
KEYWORDS: JUVENILE CRIMINALS --------------------------- TWO CHANGES IN
VIRGINIA'S JUVENILE LAW TAKE EFFECT TODAY TO GIVE THE PUBLIC AND
SCHOOL OFFICIALS GREATER ACCESS TO INFORMATION ABOUT YOUTHS ACCUSED
OF SERIOUS CRIMES, ANOTHER STEP IN THE STATE'S CAMPAIGN TO HOLD
YOUNG OFFENDERS MORE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTS.
ONE LAW GIVES JUDGES THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE PUBLIC THE NAMES AND
ADDRESSES OF YOUTHS 14 OR OLDER WHO ARE CHARGED WITH VIOLENT
OFFENSES SUCH AS MURDER, KIDNAPPING AND MOB VIOLENCE.
IN THE PAST, JUDGES WERE AUTHORIZED ONLY TO RELEASE THE NAMES AND
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION OF YOUTHS CONVICTED OF SERIOUS OFFENSES WHO
BECAME FUGITIVES.
THE SECOND NEW LAW REQUIRES COURT STAFF TO NOTIFY SCHOOL
SUPERINTENDENTS WHEN A YOUTH 14 OR OLDER IS CHARGED WITH A SERIOUS
CRIME. PREVIOUSLY, SUCH INFORMATION COULD BE PROVIDED ONLY AFTER A
CONVICTION.
THESE CHANGES REPRESENT A SHIFT IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF JUVENILE
JUSTICE, EXPERTS SAY.
``THE CONFIDENTIALITY CHANGE IS A MAJOR STEP DOWN A DIFFERENT
ROAD AS FAR AS WHAT WE'VE DONE WITH JUVENILE PROCEEDINGS,'' SAID
DEL. GERRAULD C. JONES, A LONGTIME ADVOCATE OF CHILDREN'S ISSUES AND
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMISSION ON YOUTH'S TASK FORCE, WHICH IS
STUDYING JUVENILE JUSTICE IN VIRGINIA.
``NOW WE'RE SAYING, `IF YOU'RE 14, WE'RE GOING TO TREAT YOU LIKE
YOU'RE 24 WHETHER YOU HAVE THE MATURITY OR NOT,' '' HE SAID. ``IN
CERTAIN SITUATIONS, THERE ARE VALID PUBLIC SAFETY INTERESTS THAT
OUTWEIGH THE PRIVACY INTERESTS OF THE ALLEGED JUVENILE OFFENDER.''
THE LAW PROVIDING INFORMATION TO SCHOOLS IS ANOTHER WAY OF TRYING
TO MAKE SCHOOLS SAFER, JONES SAID.
``WE WANT TO AVOID THE SCARLET LETTER, BUT WE WANT TO BALANCE THE
PUBLIC SAFETY INTERESTS AND PROTECT THOSE STUDENTS WHO MUST BE IN
CLASSES NEXT TO THE ALLEGEDLY VIOLENT OFFENDERS,'' JONES SAID.
NANCY ROSS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE VIRGINIA COMMISSION ON
YOUTH, SAYS THE MOST RADICAL FEATURE OF THE NEW LAWS WILL BE THE
RELEASE OF NAMES BEFORE GUILT OR INNOCENCE IS PROVEN.
``CRIMINAL LAW ASSUMES YOU HAVE TO BE FOUND GUILTY OR INNOCENT
BEFORE THERE ARE REPERCUSSIONS IN THE COMMUNITY,'' SHE SAID. ``SO
(THE NEW JUVENILE LAW) DOESN'T EVEN PARALLEL THAT.''
THE LAW ALLOWING JUDGES TO IDENTIFY YOUTHS CHARGED WITH VIOLENT
OFFENSES CONTINUES A LONG-STANDING TRADITION OF JUVENILE DECISIONS
BASED ON JUDICIAL DISCRETION, SHE SAID. BUT THE OTHER LAW BREAKS
FROM THAT PATTERN.
DELEGATE WILLIAM S. ``BILLY'' MOORE JR., D-PORTSMOUTH, PROPOSED
THE BILL THAT ALLOWS JUDGES TO RELEASE THE NAMES OF VIOLENT
JUVENILES. A SIMILAR VERSION WAS PROPOSED IN THE STATE SENATE.
MOORE SAID PARENTS HEAR ABOUT SUCH INCIDENTS AS THE STABBING OF A
YOUTH ON A SCHOOL BUS, YET THE IDENTITY OF THOSE BELIEVED
RESPONSIBLE IS KEPT SECRET BECAUSE OF THE AGE OF THOSE CHARGED.
``THEY WOULD FEEL SAFER HAVING THAT INFORMATION,'' MOORE SAID.
``AS A PARENT OF TWO YOUNG MALES IN HIGH SCHOOL, I'D LIKE TO HAVE
THAT INFORMATION IF IT AFFECTED ME AND MY FAMILY.''
BOTH OF THE NEW LAWS COULD HAVE MADE A BIG DIFFERENCE TO
18-YEAR-OLD DAVID JOHNSON OF CHESAPEAKE IF THEY HAD BEEN ON THE
BOOKS SOONER, HIS PARENTS SAID.
ON OCT. 3, 1994, DERRICK SAUNDERS WALKED UP TO JOHNSON AND HIT
HIM IN THE MOUTH, PULLING OUT HIS BRACES AND KNOCKING OUT SEVERAL
TEETH. SAUNDERS ALREADY WAS IN TROUBLE AT THE TIME; HE HAD BEEN
CHARGED TWO MONTHS EARLIER WITH MALICIOUS WOUNDING IN THE SHOOTING
OF ANOTHER YOUTH.
THE ATTACK ON JOHNSON OCCURRED ON THE GROUNDS OF INDIAN RIVER
HIGH SCHOOL AS HE STOOD AT THE BUS RAMP. HE HEARD SOMEONE SAY
``HEY,'' TURNED AROUND, FELT SEVERE PAIN IN HIS MOUTH AND SAW TWO OF
HIS TEETH FALL TO THE GROUND. SOMEONE NEARBY WARNED JOHNSON NOT TO
CHASE HIS ATTACKER - WHOM HE LATER FOUND OUT WAS SAUNDERS - BECAUSE
THEY THOUGHT HE HAD A GUN. JOHNSON AND HIS ATTACKER DID NOT KNOW ONE
ANOTHER.
SAUNDERS MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN ON THE SCHOOL GROUNDS IF SCHOOL
OFFICIALS HAD BEEN NOTIFIED OF THE AUGUST SHOOTING, IN WHICH A
.25-CALIBER BULLET STRUCK HIS FRIEND IN THE FOOT AS THE TWO WALKED
DOWN BETHEL ROAD IN CHESAPEAKE. AND JOHNSON MIGHT NOT HAVE HAD HIS
TEETH KNOCKED OUT.
``THIS WILL AFFECT THE REST OF HIS LIFE,'' SAID JOHNSON'S MOTHER,
JOYCE JOHNSON. ``IT'S HARD FOR ME TO EVEN SEND HIM TO SCHOOL. YOU
NEVER KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. THIS BOY HIT DAVID FOR NO
APPARENT REASON.''
SAUNDERS, 17, WAS CHARGED AND CONVICTED AS AN ADULT IN BOTH
CRIMES. HE PLEADED GUILTY TO TWO COUNTS OF MALICIOUS WOUNDING IN
CHESAPEAKE CIRCUIT COURT ON APRIL 3 BUT CLAIMED THE SHOOTING WAS AN
ACCIDENT. HE FACES A MAXIMUM OF FIVE YEARS ON EACH CHARGE AND IS
SCHEDULED FOR SENTENCING JULY 18.
JOHNSON SAID THAT AT THE TIME OF THE ATTACK ON HER SON, POLICE
WERE LOOKING FOR SAUNDERS ON THE SHOOTING CHARGE.
``WE DON'T THINK DERRICK SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN SCHOOL,'' SHE SAID.
``THE LAW WAS LOOKING FOR HIM. IF THE PRINCIPAL HAD KNOWN, I
WOULDN'T THINK HE WOULD HAVE BEEN IN SCHOOL.
``I THINK THOSE ARE GOING TO BE GOOD LAWS.''
BUT NOT EVERYONE AGREES.
``WE STILL HAVE MAJOR CONCERNS ABOUT NOTIFYING THE PUBLIC OR
SUPERINTENDENTS BEFORE THE JUVENILE HAS HAD HIS DAY IN COURT,'' SAID
JULIE MCCONNELL, ASSOCIATED DIRECTOR OF THE ACLU OF VIRGINIA'S
RICHMOND OFFICE. ``WE THINK IT'S PRETTY OUTRAGEOUS. WE'VE GONE FROM
TRYING TO REHABILITATE THEM TO JUST ASSUMING THEY ARE CRIMINALS AND
THAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE CRIMINALS FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES.''
TAKING EFFECT TODAY ARE TWO CHANGES IN VIRGINIA'S JUVENILE LAW
THAT WILL GIVE THE PUBLIC AND SCHOOL OFFICIALS GREATER ACCESS TO
INFORMATION ABOUT YOUTHS ACCUSED OF SERIOUS CRIMES, ANOTHER STEP IN
THE STATE'S CAMPAIGN TO HOLD YOUNG OFFENDERS MORE ACCOUNTABLE FOR
THEIR ACTS.
ONE LAW GIVES JUDGES THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE PUBLIC THE NAMES AND
ADDRESSES OF YOUTHS 14 OR OLDER WHO ARE CHARGED WITH VIOLENT
OFFENSES SUCH AS MURDER, KIDNAPPING AND MOB VIOLENCE.
IN THE PAST, JUDGES WERE AUTHORIZED ONLY TO RELEASE THE NAMES AND
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION OF YOUTHS CONVICTED OF SERIOUS OFFENSES WHO
BECAME FUGITIVES.
THE SECOND NEW LAW REQUIRES COURT STAFF TO NOTIFY SCHOOL
SUPERINTENDENTS WHEN A YOUTH 14 OR OLDER IS CHARGED WITH A SERIOUS
CRIME. PREVIOUSLY, SUCH INFORMATION COULD BE PROVIDED ONLY AFTER A
CONVICTION.
THESE CHANGES REPRESENT A SHIFT IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF JUVENILE
JUSTICE, EXPERTS SAY.
``THE CONFIDENTIALITY CHANGE IS A MAJOR STEP DOWN A DIFFERENT
ROAD AS FAR AS WHAT WE'VE DONE WITH JUVENILE PROCEEDINGS,'' SAID
DEL. GERRAULD C. JONES, A LONGTIME ADVOCATE OF CHILDREN'S ISSUES AND
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMISSION ON YOUTH'S TASK FORCE, WHICH IS
STUDYING JUVENILE JUSTICE IN VIRGINIA.
``NOW WE'RE SAYING, `IF YOU'RE 14, WE'RE GOING TO TREAT YOU LIKE
YOU'RE 24 WHETHER YOU HAVE THE MATURITY OR NOT,' '' HE SAID. ``IN
CERTAIN SITUATIONS, THERE ARE VALID PUBLIC SAFETY INTERESTS THAT
OUTWEIGH THE PRIVACY INTERESTS OF THE ALLEGED JUVENILE OFFENDER.''
THE LAW PROVIDING INFORMATION TO SCHOOLS IS ANOTHER WAY OF TRYING
TO MAKE SCHOOLS SAFER, JONES SAID.
``WE WANT TO AVOID THE SCARLET LETTER, BUT WE WANT TO BALANCE THE
PUBLIC SAFETY INTERESTS AND PROTECT THOSE STUDENTS WHO MUST BE IN
CLASSES NEXT TO THE ALLEGEDLY VIOLENT OFFENDERS,'' JONES SAID.
NANCY ROSS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE VIRGINIA COMMISSION ON
YOUTH, SAYS THE MOST RADICAL FEATURE OF THE NEW LAWS WILL BE THE
RELEASE OF NAMES BEFORE GUILT OR INNOCENCE IS PROVEN.
``CRIMINAL LAW ASSUMES YOU HAVE TO BE FOUND GUILTY OR INNOCENT
BEFORE THERE ARE REPERCUSSIONS IN THE COMMUNITY,'' SHE SAID. ``SO
(THE NEW JUVENILE LAW) DOESN'T EVEN PARALLEL THAT.''
THE LAW ALLOWING JUDGES TO IDENTIFY YOUTHS CHARGED WITH VIOLENT
OFFENSES CONTINUES A LONG-STANDING TRADITION OF JUVENILE DECISIONS
BASED ON JUDICIAL DISCRETION, SHE SAID. BUT THE OTHER LAW BREAKS
FROM THAT PATTERN.
DELEGATE WILLIAM S. ``BILLY'' MOORE JR., D-PORTSMOUTH, PROPOSED
THE BILL THAT ALLOWS JUDGES TO RELEASE THE NAMES OF VIOLENT
JUVENILES. A SIMILAR VERSION WAS PROPOSED IN THE STATE SENATE.
MOORE SAID PARENTS HEAR ABOUT SUCH INCIDENTS AS THE STABBING OF A
YOUTH ON A SCHOOL BUS, YET THE IDENTITY OF THOSE BELIEVED
RESPONSIBLE IS KEPT SECRET BECAUSE OF THE AGE OF THOSE CHARGED.
``THEY WOULD FEEL SAFER HAVING THAT INFORMATION,'' MOORE SAID.
``AS A PARENT OF TWO YOUNG MALES IN HIGH SCHOOL, I'D LIKE TO HAVE
THAT INFORMATION IF IT AFFECTED ME AND MY FAMILY.''
BOTH OF THE NEW LAWS COULD HAVE MADE A BIG DIFFERENCE TO
18-YEAR-OLD DAVID JOHNSON OF CHESAPEAKE IF THEY HAD BEEN ON THE
BOOKS SOONER, HIS PARENTS SAID.
ON OCT. 3, 1994, DERRICK SAUNDERS WALKED UP TO JOHNSON AND HIT
HIM IN THE MOUTH, PULLING OUT HIS BRACES AND KNOCKING OUT SEVERAL
TEETH. SAUNDERS ALREADY WAS IN TROUBLE AT THE TIME; HE HAD BEEN
CHARGED TWO MONTHS EARLIER WITH MALICIOUS WOUNDING IN THE SHOOTING
OF ANOTHER YOUTH.
THE ATTACK ON JOHNSON OCCURRED ON THE GROUNDS OF INDIAN RIVER
HIGH SCHOOL AS HE STOOD AT THE BUS RAMP. HE HEARD SOMEONE SAY
``HEY,'' TURNED AROUND, FELT SEVERE PAIN IN HIS MOUTH AND SAW TWO OF
HIS TEETH FALL TO THE GROUND. SOMEONE NEARBY WARNED JOHNSON NOT TO
CHASE HIS ATTACKER - WHOM HE LATER FOUND OUT WAS SAUNDERS - BECAUSE
THEY THOUGHT HE HAD A GUN. JOHNSON AND HIS ATTACKER DID NOT KNOW ONE
ANOTHER.
SAUNDERS MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN ON THE SCHOOL GROUNDS IF SCHOOL
OFFICIALS HAD BEEN NOTIFIED OF THE AUGUST SHOOTING, IN WHICH A
.25-CALIBER BULLET STRUCK HIS FRIEND IN THE FOOT AS THE TWO WALKED
DOWN BETHEL ROAD IN CHESAPEAKE. AND JOHNSON MIGHT NOT HAVE HAD HIS
TEETH KNOCKED OUT.
``THIS WILL AFFECT THE REST OF HIS LIFE,'' SAID JOHNSON'S MOTHER,
JOYCE JOHNSON. ``IT'S HARD FOR ME TO EVEN SEND HIM TO SCHOOL. YOU
NEVER KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. THIS BOY HIT DAVID FOR NO
APPARENT REASON.''
SAUNDERS, 17, WAS CHARGED AND CONVICTED AS AN ADULT IN BOTH
CRIMES. HE PLEADED GUILTY TO TWO COUNTS OF MALICIOUS WOUNDING IN
CHESAPEAKE CIRCUIT COURT ON APRIL 3 BUT CLAIMED THE SHOOTING WAS AN
ACCIDENT. HE FACES A MAXIMUM OF FIVE YEARS ON EACH CHARGE AND IS
SCHEDULED FOR SENTENCING JULY 18.
JOHNSON SAID THAT AT THE TIME OF THE ATTACK ON HER SON, POLICE
WERE LOOKING FOR SAUNDERS ON THE SHOOTING CHARGE BUT A MIXUP ON HIS
ADDRESS PREVENTED THEM FROM FINDING HIM IMMEDIATELY.
``WE DON'T THINK DERRICK SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN SCHOOL,'' SHE SAID.
``THE LAW WAS LOOKING FOR HIM. IF THE PRINCIPAL HAD KNOWN, I
WOULDN'T THINK HE WOULD HAVE BEEN IN SCHOOL.
``I THINK THOSE ARE GOING TO BE GOOD LAWS.''
BUT NOT EVERYONE AGREES.
``WE STILL HAVE MAJOR CONCERNS ABOUT NOTIFYING THE PUBLIC OR
SUPERINTENDENTS BEFORE THE JUVENILE HAS HAD HIS DAY IN COURT,'' SAID
JULIE MCCONNELL, ASSOCIATED DIRECTOR OF THE ACLU OF VIRGINIA'S
RICHMOND OFFICE. ``WE THINK IT'S PRETTY OUTRAGEOUS. WE'VE GONE FROM
TRYING TO REHABILITATE THEM TO JUST ASSUMING THEY ARE CRIMINALS AND
THAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE CRIMINALS FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES.''
MCCONNELL IS TROUBLED BECAUSE YOUTHS OFTEN GET ARRESTED FOR BEING
IN THE WRONG PLACE AT THE WRONG TIME ALTHOUGH THEY MAY HAVE HAD NO
DIRECT INVOLVEMENT IN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AND NEVER WILL BE
CONVICTED.
THE LAWS ARE ANOTHER STEP TOWARD TRYING ALL CHILDREN AS ADULTS,
MCCONNELL CONTENDS.
``MY GREATEST FEAR IS THAT IF YOU BRAND A CHILD AT 13, YOU MAKE
IT DIFFICULT FOR HIM TO GET BACK INTO SCHOOL, GO TO COLLEGE AND FIND
A JOB,'' SHE SAID. ``YOU GIVE THIS CHILD VERY LITTLE CHOICE BUT TO
COMMIT CRIMES TO SURVIVE.'' by CNB