When judges in Family Court impose restrictions related to a juvenile’s release, it only makes sense that those court-ordered terms be provided to the police. Obviously, this information is important to officers who subsequently encounter the juvenile. But this sharing of information can help in our prevention efforts as well.  If juveniles know that the police are aware of the terms and conditions of their release, it’s reasonable to assume that some of them will be less likely to violate those terms. 

The law would also require the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services to provide the MPD with basic information about the same categories of juveniles who have been arrested and committed to DYRS custody, including community-based facilities. Again, this is limited to juveniles who have been arrested three or more times, or who have been arrested at least once for a crime of violence or for unauthorized use of a vehicle.  The law would further require DYRS to notify the MPD of any absconder or juvenile who is absent from a DYRS facility without authorization, regardless of the offense for which the juvenile was arrested.

This latter provision is particularly important.  We know from experience that juvenile absconders are at a higher risk of re-offending or being victimized themselves.  Tragically, since 2004, three juveniles with a history of absconding were subsequently killed. We also know that at least 10 juvenile homicide victims in 2004 and 2005 had prior arrest histories. 

One of these juveniles was shot to death execution-style, and dumped by the side of the road last October.  In the preceding 19 months, beginning at the age of 14, this young man had been in and out of the juvenile justice system on weapons and other serious charges, and he had absconded more than once from his placements. During this time, he was also responsible for several brutal murders in Southeast DC; he was nothing short of a one young-man killing machine. But because of current laws, the MPD did not always know where he was or where he was supposed to be during this time period. His case alone should be reason enough for us to reconsider how we handle some of our most violent juvenile offenders, and to reform – as this legislation would – our policies and procedures for sharing information about certain young offenders.

The bottom line: the sooner our Department learns about at-risk juvenile offenders, the sooner we can work on locating them and preventing their further involvement in crime in our neighborhoods, either as offenders or as victims.