The Danger in Withholding Information on Young Offenders

MEMBERS of the D.C. Council recently held a roundtable to air the appalling circumstances of Lafonte Lurie Carlton, a juvenile offender charged with killing two people soon after his release into the community. They shouldn't have bothered; the District's strict laws about confidentiality in juvenile delinquency cases barred the release of any useful information.

So the public still has no idea why authorities thought it was wise to free Mr. Carlton, or how he was monitored, or whether anyone involved in his supposed supervision is being held accountable. So restrictive are D.C. laws that even law enforcement agencies are prevented from getting important information. When young offenders such as Mr. Carlton are sent back into the community, police aren't told or briefed about the conditions of their release. Such rules do more to protect the troubles of a system than any juvenile with troubles.

The little we do know makes clear the need for scrutiny of the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services' handling of the 18-year-old Mr. Carlton. In 2006, at age 15, he killed a 22-year-old man. After less than 2 1/2 years in custody (some of it in treatment), he was released, only to be arrested in connection with the two new homicides.

Before the two shootings, one in December and the other in January, Mr. Carlton had been arrested on a drug charge but, in likely violation of the conditions of his release, remained free while efforts were underway to return him to custody. Mr. Carlton's case was the most recent in a series of troubling cases profiled by Post columnist Colbert I. King.

Even though Mr. Carlton is now 18 and charged in the adult system, officials involved in his juvenile case can't discuss any aspect of it. That point was made powerfully clear by Superior Court Chief Judge Lee F. Satterfield, who, appearing before this week's roundtable on youth violence, chided council members for asking questions that they -- by virtue of laws of their own creation -- made it illegal for him to answer. There are reasons to protect people from some consequences of their youthful mistakes, but nothing is gained by preventing DYRS Director Vincent Schiraldi from explaining his handling of this case, particularly if the prohibition allows problems to go uncorrected.

Cases such as this could undermine the useful reforms Mr. Schiraldi is attempting in the treatment of young offenders. For that reason, and even more for the public's safety, discussion is needed on how decisions are made regarding the placement and release of juvenile offenders. The first step has to be lifting the secrecy that makes facts so hard to come by.