No disagreeing with your overall sentiment, but I think one small step in the right direction would be to stop the knee-jerk "evil" characterizations whenever a young person does someTHING that is evil. That kid, in all likelihood, is not "evil" -- he is an almost statistically inevitable product of the culture in this country of 300 million people.
An example to highlight what I mean: Columbine. Eric Harris was the closest to meeting the characterization of "evil" if you want to consider psychopathy as being evil. Even then, the culture surrounding him played a big part in his doing what he did. Klebold, on the other hand, is much closer to what many of these young killers are...and inherent "evilness" is not their problem.
One can say that thiis distinction is not meaningful, but I disagree. Calling something "evil" gives our society an easy bogeyman to blame rather than doing something difficult and constructive to stop it from happening.