Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1945-06-29
Truoncy and the Courts

The Municipal Court of Appeals
recently decided the first case to
reach 1t on appeal from the Juvenile
Court, and the facts of the contro-
versy, together with the ruling of
the court, should be OF considerable
general interest.
A sixteen-year-old boy, Leroy Knoll.
had been committed to the National
training School until he reached the
age OF twenty-one after a hearing
IN Juvenile Court. The evidence
showed that the boy was habitually
truant from school. But the evil
dence also showed that, except for
truancy, his conduct had been good,
he was obedient, and he had had no
trouble with police or neighbors. He
Is the youngest Of seven children,
three of his older brothers and sisters
being In military service and three
In the Government His home en-
vironment was good and his parents
wanted to keep him at home, his
father testifying that a physician
had advised him to keep the boy
ut home because of a nervous con-
dition.
On this record, in an original pro-
ceeding during the boys fifteenth
year, he was committed to the
Training School Released for an
operation, he returned home for a
few days and then went to Florida
to avoid being returned to the insti-
tuition. Shortly before his sixteenth
birthday, after which the compul-
sorry school attendance law ceases to
be applicable, he returned home and
got a job as an apprentice machinist
at the Washington Navy Yard. In
this capacity, incidentally, he was
required to attend q school main
tanned at the yard. This was the
situation prevailing when the boy
was again taken into custody on the
ground Apf the past truancy, and
again committed to the National
Training School.
In setting this commitment aside
and ordering the boys release, the
appellate court declared that the
objective of the Juvenile Court law
Is rehabilitation and not punish
ment. 1t is important to enforce the
truancy laws, the court said, but the
judges also pointed out that when
the second proceeding was started
the Knoll boy was beyond the age OF
compulsory education, and that his
earlier truancy was past recall or
cure"
Then the appellate judges posed
this question: "W.il a child's de-
velopment into a useful law-abiding
citizen be aided by taking him out
OF his home, away from respectable,
interested parents, from good asso-
ciates and from a useful employ
ment of his own choice, and placing
him in a correctional institution
where some of his associates may be
persons guilty OF serious of1enSes
and in some instances perhaps pos
sessed of depraved or known criminal
tendencies, and where he will be re-
quired to learn a trade for which
he may nave neither aptitude nor
nking?"
The question is one which answers
itself. But tx fact that it is peril
nent in the correction of q miscar-
rage of justice carries implications
which should be seriously pondered
by the officials responsible for the
arbitrary and unwise manner in
which this boys case was handled.
1t may be hoped that there will not
be another instance in which a
sixteen-year-old boy, guilty of no
greater offense than an unwilling
ness 10 attend school, is yanked out
of a position in which he is learning
q useful trade and committed to a
public institution, to be kept there
against his will and against the
wishes of reputable parents.