felony-these are not the acts of children and the law should establish them as not being the acts of children, that it be mandatory that they be handled as adults.

Also, the second offense and provide for waivers of misdemeanors. As I pointed out here, we had a juvenile with a long record who could not be waived on because he was involved in misdemeanors. I think the recommendations I make are the recommendations I made 32 years ago. I am not saying make this mandatory because of any reflection on the present administration of juvenile court. I am saying that if juveniles know this, it would have a deterring effect.

I would much rather see us working on preventing the crime rather. than handling it later through court action. This might stop some of these 16- and 17-year-olds from committing some of these offenses. It is surprising how many of these juveniles will rehabilitate themselves when they reach 18 years of age and know what the law is. They are familiar with the law. They tell us, "I know my rights.” We have had them bring up Mallory, juveniles, and so forth. They know. If they know that by committing a serious offense such as I have outlined here they will be faced with adult court action, they will not commit that crime. It is not a reflection on the court, but just the fact that the law is there and they will know it.

Senator BIBLE. How much unanimity is there between the Commissioners, the judges, and the police in making these recommendations for changes to the juvenile court?

Mr. WINTERS. At the time I made them before, there was very little unanimity. In the meantime, what I said at that time has proven to be a fact. The juvenile crime situation has worsened in this city until right now, it is worse than it has ever been since the juvenile court has been formed.

Senator BIBLE. With whom do you discuss these changes? The Corporation Counsel and the Commissioners, or how?

Mr. WINTERS. I have discussed my feelings in many, many public appearances, Senator. I have repeatedly expressed my stand and quite a number of people have agreed with my position, in civic organizations, service clubs, things of that nature. I believe the Citizens Crime Council is more or less in favor of what I am saying here.

Senator BIBLE. The proposals you are making here today, have they been discussed with the present Board of Commissioners?

Mr. WINTERS. Not with them, no, sir; but Chief Murray, I have discussed them with him.

Senator BIBLE. These recommendations.

Mr. WINTERS. Yes, sir. Chief Murray is familiar with the recommendations I have made.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Gentlemen, we have three other witnesses. We must hear them before we adjourn.

Mr. HORTON. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ask the Chief, he did not have a recommendation in here with regard to a central index. Is this something we would not be concerned about in this committee, or is this something you did not include for some specific reason?

Mr. WINTERS. No, sir; the reason that is not included is this is one of the projects under discussion and consideration now by the committee set up here in the District of Columbia under the President's Committee on Juvenile Delinquency. This is one of the things they are discussing now.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Chief, I am impressed with your testimony, and as a result of my interest and also studying the testimony presented before this committee, I have been led to check on some things. So I have some questions I want to raise regarding, first of all, the court. Are the parents required to come with these offenders to the court? Mr. WINTERS. Yes, sir. When the subpena is sent out for the juvenile, it includes the parents; yes, sir.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. I read with a great deal of interest the story in one of the magazine sections of the Sunday paper yesterday about the judge at Whiting, Ind., where he got kind of impatient and started issuing some different kinds of penalties, including spanking and other things.

What do you think of that?

Mr. WINTERS. I do not know how large a town Whiting is or what their problem is, but I would say this: As long as that judge maintains that firmness in attitude, there is going to be very little delinquency in that town. I saw it happen right here when Judge Emmett Nanna was on the bench in Prince Georges County. During his administration of juvenile court there, he made a practice of putting a few parents in jail. Surprisingly enough, in Prince Georges County, the delingency rate went down and when he spoke, the parents listened.

What he did when there were children involved, he put one parent in jail on Saturday, the other in jail on Sunday, so there would be a parent left with the children. When he talked parents listened.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Do the judges here level a penalty on the parent? Mr. WINTERS. There is no parental responsibility law here in the District. The only applicable law would be contributing to delinquency of a minor, which would apply to parents as well as to anyone else.

However, that is a very difficult case to prove in the court.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Would you suggest that we give consideration to that sort of law?

Mr. WINTERS. Yes, sir; because I believe this: I believe if we can show to the satisfaction of the court that a child is in trouble because of the indifference, irresponsibility and negligence of the parents, I think those parents should be made to answer for it, if we can show that.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. One other question. You spoke about boys' clubs and you have a committee that works with boys' clubs. How many boys' clubs, active boys' clubs, do you have in the District?

Mr. WINTERS. On police boys' clubs, we have 2,000. There are other boys' clubs-Washington boys' clubs and many other youth organizations. But in the police boys' clubs, there are two. However, as you may or may not know, the Commissioners have authorized the Police Department again to solicit funds for the boys' clubs and it is anticipated that others will be opening up at strategic points throughout the city. We expect that to develop and build up during the next year or so to a substantial number of boys' clubs servicing a number of youngsters here in the city.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Do you have any trouble finding people you can parole these juveniles to?

Mr. WINTERS. I do not know too much about parole, Congressman. The only parole that affects us is those that used to be paroled from

the National Training School. I say used to, because they are only committed until their 18th birthday now, even though some of them are over 17 years of age.

To expand that so you understand what I mean, they used to commit them to the National Training School during their minority under 21, and they would be eligible to parole under the Youth Division of the Parole Department.

Senator PROUTY. Could I ask one brief question?

To what extent does unemployment among young people between 16 and 18 contribute to juvenile delinquency?

Mr. WINTERS. As far as the 18- and 19-year-olds are concerned, I do not know. But the lack of job opportunities would not apply to most juveniles, because most of them are under the age of 16 years and would not be in an employable status anyway.

As I pointed out to you, and I think the record would prove it, most of these 18- or 19-year-olds who are established criminals, their record started long before they were of an employable age.

Mr. WILLIAMS. May I ask one question about the case of Mrs. Brooks Hays!

Chief, you made quite a point about the question of parental responsibility.

Mr. WINTERS. Yes, sir.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Could you give us an idea of what the background of this youngster was, the family background?

Mr. WINTERS. I don't have that, Congressman. I do not know offhand what that is.

But I might point out on the question of parental responsibility, I think we have a good concrete example in the antiloitering regulation. This is a regulation promulgated by the Commissioners under the authority they already have. In that law, if a juvenile is found loitering three times within a period of 12 months, we can then send him to court and also apply for a warrant for the parents, because it makes them responsible after they are notified the second time.

This regulation has been in effect something like 2 years now and we have had to take no parent to the Court of General Sessions yet, because when they are told that the next time, "You are going to court, we are going to obtain a warrant for you," it just does not happen the next time.

Mr. MCMILLAN. And thank you, Chief Winters, and your entire statement will be included in the record.

Senator PROUTY. Would a curfew law help?

Mr. WINTERS. A district curfew would not work in a large city. Those cities which have tried it have had to change it to an antiloitering law, and it is not fair to the other children.

(The complete prepared statement of Mr. Winters is as follows:)

METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Washington, D.C., March 4, 1963.

STATEMENT BY DEPUTY CHIEF JOHN E. WINTERS ON INFORMATION CONCERNING JUVENILE CRIME IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

The total crime picture in the District of Columbia for fiscal year 1962 reflected a 1.2-percent decrease as compared to fiscal 1961. Juvenile delinquency increased 17.7 percent during the same year as compared to the year before. This was the fourth consecutive year that delinquency has shown an increase but the year 1962 was, by far, the most significant. In reporting the status of delinquency, reference is made to criminal and quasi-criminal offenses referred to juvenile court. It does not include violations of the traffic regulations.

From the statistics for fiscal year 1962, certain facts appear to be irrefutable: 1. A noteworthy decrease in crime in the District of Columbia would have occurred in fiscal 1962 if it had not been for the increase in offenses committed by juveniles.

2. A large portion of the increase in juvenile offenses can be attributed to those juveniles who were already known to juvenile court-43 percent of the males and 24 percent of the females.

3. Sixteen- and seventeen-year-old juveniles accounted for 34 percent of all offenses referred to juvenile court but were also involved in 40 percent of the felony cases. Of the total number of 16- and 17-year-old juveniles so referred, 51 percent were already known to the court or, in other words, had committed previous crimes.

4. The above three statements can be reduced to one-juvenile offenders already known to juvenile court were responsible for a significant portion of the crime that occurred in the District of Columbia during fiscal 1962.

In comparing the number of juvenile arrests to all arrests for all offenses, the number of juvenile arrests would be comparatively small. Some offenses are predominantly adult in nature-such as drunkenness, etc. In certain crimes, however, juvenile responsibility poses a different picture.

The following is a chart showing certain crimes referred to as part I offenses and the arrests made for the commission of those crimes for fiscal year 1962.

Of the above arrests, juveniles constituted 26 percent of those arrests. This is the same percentage as in fiscal year 1961. Of particular note, however, is the percentage of juvenile arrests for certain crimes:

Increases are noted in all but one category, robbery.

From the foregoing it is apparent that efforts to control and prevent crime in the District of Columbia must be substantially predicated on the fact that offenses committed by juveniles contribute markedly to the overall crime situation in the District of Columbia.

It is the opinion of the commanding officer of the Youth Aid Division that certain factors need to be considered if remedial measures are to be taken. There is no doubt that the backlog of cases in juvenile court and the long delay between the date of an offense and the final disposition of the case had an adverse effect. The addition of two judges to the court will, in time, help to overcome this problem. Some questions that need to be considered, however,

are:

1. Are jury trials for juveniles necessary? As far as is known, no other juvenile court in the country grants jury trials to juveniles. Under the Federal Delinquency Act, a person under 18 years of age must waive his right to a jury trial if he desires to be tried as a juvenile and the U.S. attorney must approve. 2. Why should licensed juvenile operators of motor vehicles be tried in juvenile court for traffic violations? They are not delinquents. They have been given a privilege and its corresponding responsibility. The special services of the juvenile court have no application in these cases.

3. Why should the waiver provisions of the Juvenile Court Act apply only to felonies and to the case, not the individual? Some misdemeanors are, in actuality, more serious than some felonies. It seems that the determining factor should be the juvenile's susceptibility to juvenile court procedures rather than the degree of crime. A chronic misdemeanant must, under present law, be continualy handled by the juvenile court. As a matter of fact, some juveniles upon whom jurisdiction has been waived, have committed misdemeanors while still under 18 years of age. What can be done in these cases? The U.S. district court has no jurisdiction and the juvenile court has already indicated its inability to handle this juvenile. If a waived juvenile commits another crime before he reaches 18 years of age, why must he be processed again through juvenile court?

4. Why is a prior social investigation required before a juvenile's case has been adjudicated? It seems that the first action to be taken is to establish the juvenile's involvement in the offense alleged. A prior social investigation would be a waste of time if the case against a juvenile should subsequently be dismissed. The social investigation is important to the disposition of the case by the judge.

5. Are the older juveniles, particularly the repeaters, found involved in serious offenses being handled realistically? The statistics indicate otherwise. The proportion of 16- and 17-year-old repeaters is out of balance with the need for community protection. If existing acts of Congress have repeatedly established the age of 16 years as one of responsibility, it is difficult to understand that for fiscal year 1962, 83 percent of the 16- and 17-year-old juveniles accused of committing felonies were deemed to be children and handled accordingly.

The theory of rehabilitation is believed to be sound and the philosophy behind juvenile court procedures is calculated to serve the best interests of both children and society. The police, as well as all agencies and persons having a responsibility in this field, should plan their programs toward the end that children in trouble should receive all of the help that community resources can provide. The Youth Aid Division has emphasized this aim in dealing with thousands of children during the past 8 years.

The fact remains, however, and the record proves the point, that not all children respond to this approach and the pattern of acts against society broadens and deepens. There is a vast difference between children who need and deserve all of the help that can be given and the older, sophisticated, and hardened young criminal who is a juvenile in age only.

Those juveniles who commit violent and vicious crimes and those who continue to prey upon society by their unlawful acts are not entitled to the unwarranted leniency that has been bestowed upon them. By whatever name called, it is still unadulterated crime.