September 23, 2004

Public Hearing Public Hearing on Bill 15-450 “Public Congestion and Venue Protection Act of 2004,” Bill 15-912 “Increased Penalties for the Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle Amendment Act of 2004,” Bill 15-972 “Juvenile Car Theft Solution Amendment Act of 2004”

The Department also has comments on Bill 15-973 – the “Juvenile Car Theft Solution Amendment Act of 2004” – which would amend Title 16 of the DC Code to prescribe specific treatment and consequences for certain juveniles who have been adjudicated delinquent on a second or subsequent occasion for a vehicle theft offense. As with adult offenders, our Department vigorously supports legislative efforts to all hold juvenile auto thieves more accountable for their actions. I don’t need to tell the Committee or the public that in recent years, juvenile auto theft has reached epidemic levels in some of our neighborhoods. And while our Department supports increased accountability for juvenile offenders, we believe that the current bill does not go far enough in this regard. Following are some of the specific recommendations we have for strengthening the legislation:

• First, the bill needs to address first-time offenders. Accountability for juvenile auto thieves must begin with the first offense. Our Department’s relatively small OPAT program – Operation Prevent Auto Theft – has been targeting these first-time offenders and their parents/guardians for several months now, and we have been quite successful in reducing recidivism among these juveniles. If we wait for a second, third or subsequent offense before taking decisive action with juvenile auto thieves, then we have waited too long and have missed a golden opportunity to intervene in that young person’s life and interrupt a potential criminal career.
• Second, the Department believes that the bill should contain mandatory penalties for second and subsequent offenses. Specifically, we believe these offenses should carry a period of confinement – for example, at least 60 days – after which the child is placed on intensive probation for another set period of time. During the probation period, there should be clearly identified penalties for non-compliance.
• Third, we find the new subsection (i)(2)(b) to be vague. We believe that during the intensive probation period, the juvenile and his or her parents or guardians should be required to perform no less than 90 hours of community service and should have to attend parenting classes as well.
• Fourth, this subsection does not identify what constitute “a reasonable amount of restitution to the victim or victims of the offenses.” Restitution should be put in place for third and subsequent offenses, with clear guidelines and payment schedules. For particularly young offenders or in cases where the juvenile cannot work, parents or guardians should bear the responsibility for paying restitution to the victims.

Page 3 of 4                           1   2   3   4