A Questionable Crackdown

Emergency measure doesn't address effectiveness of curfews, early release from prison or roots of crime.

WE HOPE that Mayor Anthony A. Williams's emergency crime initiative, adopted by the D.C. Council last week, will help stem the violence that has risen in recent weeks. But at best it's a stopgap that doesn't speak to the need for real change in a broken system.

Events of the last month -- the murders of 15 people, increases in robberies (9 percent) and assaults with a deadly weapon (21 percent) -- demanded a response from city officials. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey's declaration of a "crime emergency" was a necessary first step, and Mr. Williams was right to call the council into special session.

The resulting legislation -- an earlier curfew for youths, surveillance cameras in neighborhoods, more police overtime and looser confidential rules on juvenile records -- is a mixed bag. On the promising side is the expansion of video cameras into residential areas. While some see this as an intrusion into private lives, the limited plan is worth testing. In other cities some crimes have been solved thanks to video footage, and residents of high-crime neighborhoods are clamoring for, not objecting to, the cameras. Whether they prove to be worth their expense is another matter, and city officials should find ways to gauge effectiveness.

More problematic is the decision to allow the mayor to set an earlier curfew for those 16 or younger. Aside from making it more difficult for the majority of law-abiding youth to go to an evening movie or visit friends, one wonders what will be accomplished. The existing curfew has done little to counter juvenile crime, and there are better things for police to do than drive teens to curfew centers. Since most crimes are still committed by adults, maybe they're the ones who should be off the streets by 10 p.m.

The decision to alert police when repeat violent juvenile offenders are released is a common-sense idea but, like much of the plan, doesn't go far enough. Chief Ramsey's defense of the change -- "If they've been arrested seven, eight times for armed robbery, why wouldn't we take a look to see if they're responsible?" -- raises the question of why someone who has committed numerous crimes is back on the streets at all. Far too often, say veteran law enforcement officials, young offenders are released without consequences, emboldened to commit more awful crimes. D.C. policies regarding juvenile offenders are far more lenient than those of most states, including Maryland and Virginia. Two years ago, the mayor suggested some reforms, such as making it easier to transfer the cases of dangerous 15-year-olds charged with serious felonies to adult court, but the council rejected the move.

Other questions: If millions of dollars can be found for police overtime, why not undertake a more serious effort to improve the job training and work development programs that have an anti-crime impact of their own? Is there validity to residents' complaints of insufficient police presence in their neighborhoods?

The emergency measures will expire after 90 days. Officials are planning a joint federal and local crime summit to be held in two months. That gives the mayor and council a chance for a more serious effort aimed at lasting change.