LESS THAN 35 HOURS after absconding from a D.C. youth home, 20-year-old Rashad Terrell Slye is alleged to have fatally shot a cabdriver in an argument over — as horrifying as it is to imagine — 75 cents. The killing of Domingo Ezirike, 40, has focused renewed attention on the practices and policies of the District’s juvenile justice agency.
Was this troubled young man a suitable candidate for placement in the community? Was he being appropriately supervised? Could this terrible crime have been avoided? Alas, those and other questions will go largely unanswered because of overly restrictive confidentiality laws that seem to serve no other purpose than to keep the public in the dark.
Consider, for example, the absurdity of officials with the Department of Youth and Rehabilitation Services being barred from even confirming that Mr. Slye is one of their wards. Perhaps an argument can be made to shield the identity of a teen who has gotten in trouble with drugs or is caught shoplifting and is being rehabilitated; youthful indiscretions should not hinder a person’s future. But here is a case of someone just shy of 21 — an adult, for heaven’s sake — who is accused of murder and who will accordingly be tried in adult court. Surely, Mr. Ezirike’s family has a right to know what led to the fateful moment in the early hours of Oct. 22, when Mr. Slye is alleged to have pulled out a gun and, ignoring the cabdriver’s pleas, pulled the trigger. And clearly the public has a stake in knowing more about the services afforded to Mr. Slye and whether any mistakes were made.
The D.C. Council last year undertook some changes to the confidentiality laws that allowed a better exchange of information among authorities. The committee report supporting the change begins with the striking words of Chief Justice Warren E. Burger that “The crucial prophylactic aspects of the administration of justice cannot function in the dark; no community catharsis can occur if justice is ‘done in a corner [or] in any covert manner,’ ” but unfortunately the reform that was enacted fell far short of that promise.
Council member Jim Graham (D-Ward 1), who has assumed oversight responsibility for DYRS, told us he plans to take a new look at this issue. He also appropriately plans to examine the agency’s handling of young people between the ages of 18 and 21, who he said make up about half the agency’s caseload. There is probably no good answer to why a 20-year-old would kill someone over 75 cents, but the troubling aspects of this case demand that the questions be asked.
Loading...
Comments