Ignoring juvenile crime far worse for society at large

OPINION:

Last week, my wife had two unpleasant encounters with young people on the streets of Washington.

In the first incident, my wife was pulling out of a parking lot on upper Wisconsin Avenue when a girl about 10 or 11 years old, seemingly heading to a nearby school, darted into traffic from between two parked cars. This reckless conduct almost resulted in serious harm to the girl. By pressing the brakes, my wife avoided hitting the child.

My wife then rolled down her window and indicated to the girl that she needed to be more careful.

While it is not surprising that the youngster did not express gratitude for the warning, my wife was startled by the response. The girl went into a tirade that included racial invective before heading into the school just across the street.

Uncertain as to what to do, my wife chose to go to the school and request a meeting with the principal. As my wife related, walking into the school had the feel of entering a prison. Beyond having to go through a series of locked doors and magnetometers, my wife was surprised by the number of guards and supervisors scattered throughout the facility, keeping watch over the grounds.

The principal kindly received my wife and spent quite some time with her. When informed about the behavior of one of her students, the principal did not seek to avoid the issue but expressed frustration. She noted that many of her students come from difficult environments and are aggressive when their comportment is challenged. Clearly, she perceived that the absence of strict parental discipline is one of the factors wreaking havoc on childhood behavior.

This encounter was a prelude to a second encounter my wife had on Wisconsin Avenue, this time in Georgetown. As my wife was driving north, she saw a teenager on a bicycle in front of her. The boy, who should have obviously been in school, approached the rear of a parked truck whose merchandise was being unloaded. The young man stopped his bicycle just long enough to grab an electric drill from the back of the truck and then rode off.

My wife followed the young man and, in the process, called 911 to report what she had just seen. To her dismay, the operator ordered my wife to abandon her efforts because, according to the operator, my wife was causing a dangerous situation.

With the exception of that warning, the matter appeared too inconsequential to trouble the 911 operator. Undisturbed, the young man eventually disappeared behind some houses with his stolen loot.

These two incidents have a disconcerting quality to them. The overt misbehavior seemed both normal and, in the second case, although involving a violation of law, too inconsequential even to warrant pursuit.

The incidents reminded me of a saying that my grandmother would often repeat as I was growing up in Paris: “Qui vol un oeuf, vol un boeuf” — literally, “he who steals an egg, steals a bull.” This adage uses French agricultural traditions to capture the notion that minor misbehavior can readily grow into more serious wrongdoing.

In contemporary America, this concept has been encapsulated in the so-called broken windows theory of fighting crime: Don’t allow small infractions of the law so as to prevent consequential infractions later. Although its application in New York rendered that city relatively safe, the practice has been cast aside in recent years amid cries of “racism.”

At a time of rapidly increasing crime, lack of willingness to take action against anti-social behavior is profoundly dangerous. My grandmother’s simple formulation provides a road map for us, urging action against acts that may seem insignificant but which can lead to far worse consequences if left unaddressed.

This is particularly true in the case of juvenile crime. A young person who violates or is tempted to violate the law must be stopped at the outset of the bad conduct. Failure to do so can only serve as an implicit sign of encouragement or at least tolerance of the bad behavior.

A strong and swift response, on the other hand, can be a source of deterrence that will prevent more nefarious behavior later.

The two situations my wife encountered are signs of potentially serious problems in the future for the two young people involved. Guiding them now and making it clear that their comportment is unacceptable is a means of potentially dissuading them from far more dire behavior in the future. Neither indulgence nor disregard is the answer.

Today, as we find our stores frequently the object of shoplifting, often at the hands of the very young, we need to develop the will to confront this stealing of “eggs.” Suggesting that a theft involving goods of modest value is insufficiently troubling to warrant intervention is an invitation to the future theft of “bulls” and worse.

For a girl to engage in dangerous conduct and then cover that conduct with invective or to permit a boy to steal with impunity merely because the individuals are young is to open the gates to a disregard of social norms. It is not a means of making amends for past wrongs or tolerating youthful rebellion.

It is rather an encouragement to a dissolute and unpleasant life for the individuals and possibly far worse for society at large.

My grandmother’s time-tested saying remains relevant for today. Perhaps it could beneficially be reformulated and modernized to: He who steals candy bars will end up behind bars.

• Gerard Leval is a partner in the Washington office of a national law firm. His book, “Lobbying for Equality: Jacques Godard and the Struggle for Jewish Civil Rights During the French Revolution,” was published by HUC Press last year.