OLD ENOUGH TO KILL; FEW VIOLENT JUVENILES EVER MAKE IT TO ADULT COURT. IF THE PANDEMIC OF YOUTH CRIME IS TO BE HALTED, MORE MINORS MUST BE TRIED AS ADULTS.

Byline: ROBERT SEXTON 

CONGRESS should be applauded for its recent efforts to curtail juvenile crime.

The House voted 286-132 to allow juveniles as young as 13 years of age to be tried as adults for serious felonies. To further their cause they authorized $1.5 billion in incentives over three years to states that adopt similar laws.

In the past, we have tried two approaches to reducing the inordinate amount of crime: increasing the budget for law enforcement and imposing more stringent statutes and stiffer penalties on those apprehended.

However, one particularly effective way to increase the sentence or fine for juvenile offenses that is finally being considered seriously is to reduce the age requirement for adult courts.

Only a very small minority of juveniles are sent to adult courts - those who are accused of violent felonies. However, waiving juveniles into adult courts might be an effective strategy for all repeat juvenile offenders.

Since the cost to society is the same regardless of the age of the criminal, why should repeat juvenile offenders receive lighter sentences than adults?

After all, it is no secret that juvenile courts are considerably more lenient that adult courts. If tried as adults this would mean that juveniles could be given longer sentences and required to spend time in state prisons rather than in juvenile detention centers.

A recent report from the U.S. Department of Justice highlights the alarming increase in juvenile crime from 1988-1992 - aggravated assault cases were up 80 percent; homicide increased 55 percent; robberies went up 52 percent and forcible rape cases rose by 27 percent.

In 1990, more than a third of all murders in the United States were committed by individuals under the age of 21. Among 18-year-olds, the homicide rate doubled between 1985 and 1992. During that same period the rate for 16-year-olds increased 138 percent while homicide rates for adults declined by 20 percent. Thus, most of the increase in homicides from 1985-1992 was due to a surge in killings by teen-agers.

And the juvenile crime rate is rising. According to Uniform Crime Reports, juvenile arrests were up 11 percent from 1993-1994.

Even more concerning is the fact that while 15- and 16-year-olds make up only a small proportion of our population, they commit a large percentage of all violent crime.

There are 40 million children that are now under the age of 10. By the year 2005 estimates have the number of teen-agers increasing by almost 25 percent. If the current trend continues, violent crimes will reach horrific levels.

The fact that teen-agers are committing more violent acts at an earlier age is undoubtedly responsible for the rising growth in the nation's violent-crime rate.

But what can effectively be done when federal and state governments are under severe budgetary constraints?

The influence of drugs, drug money and gangs, and the ease of acquiring a lethal weapon are all contributing factors to the juvenile crime problem.

One serious problem in dealing with young offenders is the lack of information regarding serious crimes committed before the age of 18.

Full disclosure

Under current laws in most states, felonies and misdemeanors committed by minors are not made public. Many apparent first-time offenders in adult courts have in fact committed many serious crimes as juveniles but the evidence may not be available.

However, if minors were tried as adults, the criminal records of juvenile offenders would be disclosed at an earlier age. This is important because past criminal records have a lot to do with current sentencing.

Another advantage of having greater access to juvenile criminal records is that prosecutors can increase the probability of convicting the right person.

It stands to reason that the access to juvenile crime records at an earlier age and the threat of spending more time in prison rather than less time in a juvenile detention center would have a significant deterrent effect. Since the vast majority of states do not gain jurisdiction over young offenders in criminal courts until the age of 18, it is not surprising that criminal activity is so prevalent among the young, since they pay such a low ``price'' for it.

Recent research appears to confirm that waiving youths into adult courts for serious offenses increase the certainty of punishment.

For example, a 1984 study by Donna Hamparian found that 91 percent of the waived youths were convicted.

It is also a well-known fact that most juvenile crime is committed by ``chronic offenders.'' In a 1988 Bureau of Justice study on state operated juvenile facilities, it was found that almost 43 percent of the juveniles detained had been arrested more than five times and more than 20 percent had been arrested more than 10 times.

Small, violent core

In a famous study on Philadelphia, Marvin Wolfgang found that a few chronic juvenile offenders committed 60-75 percent of all violent juvenile offenses. The study concluded that the arrest and juvenile court experience did little to deter repeat offenders.

The juvenile justice system has its counterpart to adult court plea bargaining.

Department of Justice statistics reveal that only 60 percent of all children arrested by the police are actually referred to juvenile courts. The others are either warned, parents are notified or they are referred to social service programs.

If we are to make any progress toward controlling violent juvenile crime, court records on juveniles must be opened. Repeat juvenile offenders should know that the authorities have access to past records and will use that information when handing down their sentences.

After all, don't taxpayers have a right to know what they're getting for $85,000 a year - the cost of keeping a juvenile offender in a secure facility in the state of New York?

In order to keep repeat juvenile offenders off the streets we need to open juvenile court records, enforce strict laws and apply firm uniform sentencing provisions. This will have two effects. One, it will keep chronic juvenile offenders in prison for longer periods of time and, two, it will deter others from pursuing careers as criminals.

For the most part, politicians have ignored strategies that would minimize enforcement costs in the ``war against juvenile crime.'' Since these costs are substantial there is a clear economic advantage in favor of introducing a lower adult court age limit rather than far more costly increases in police budgets.

And the recent explosion in teen violence by many of those younger than 18 years of age might lead to a political acceptance of an adult court age limit of 16 years or younger for juvenile offenders.