Diverting the Status Offender from the Juvenile Court

2009 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 18-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan J. Couch
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
Status Offender

Making Court the Last Resort: A New Focus for Supporting Families in Crisis

2011 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-33
Author(s):  
Sara Mogulescu ◽  
Gaspar Caro
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Juvenile Justice System ◽  
Juvenile Court ◽  
Criminal Activity ◽  
New Paradigm ◽  
Service Programs ◽  
Court Intervention ◽  
Status Offender ◽  
Social Service Programs

This article was originally published by the Vera Institute of Justice in December 2008. Until recently, youth who may be chronically disobedient but not committing crime were frequently referred to juvenile court and subject to the same punitive interventions as youth charged with criminal activity. To better help youth and their families, many status offender systems are implementing immediate, family-focused alternatives to court intervention, first referring at-risk young people and their families to social service programs in their communities and using the juvenile justice system as a last resort. The new paradigm is guided by the belief that given help and support, families have the potential to resolve issues without the courts. This paper highlights successful reforms based on this new paradigm in Connecticut, Florida, and New York.

Die Koppelung von Jugendarrest und bedingter Jugendstrafe als sog. "Warnschussarrest" gem. § 16a JGG

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Study ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Juvenile Court ◽  
Case Analysis ◽  
Juvenile Detention ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Legal Requirements ◽  
Detailed Case ◽  
Empirical Level ◽  
The Status

As of 7 March 2013, the possibility of combining juvenile detention and a suspended juvenile sentence as regulated in § 16a JGG was added to the system of sanctions under juvenile criminal law. Based on the central arguments in favour and against the so-called “Warnschussarrest”, the author analyses the regulation of § 16a JGG on a normative and empirical level. Specifically, the legal requirements in § 16a JGG and its compatibility with the sanction regime of the JGG are discussed. The focus is on a broad-based empirical study of the implementation in Bavaria, which examines the status quo of § 16a JGG by means of a detailed case analysis, a survey conducted with Bavarian juvenile court judges and interviews with experts in the relevant juvenile detention centres. It also considers the question of recidivism after such a conviction. The author concludes the work with a proposal on how § 16a JGG can be improved.

Criminalization of Black Children

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tera Eva Agyepong
Keyword(s):  
African American ◽  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Juvenile Court ◽  
Black Children ◽  
Late Nineteenth Century ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Great Migration ◽  
Late Nineteenth ◽  
The City

In the late nineteenth century, progressive reformers recoiled at the prospect of the justice system punishing children as adults. Advocating that children’s inherent innocence warranted fundamentally different treatment, reformers founded the nation’s first juvenile court in Chicago in 1899. Yet amid an influx of new African American arrivals to the city during the Great Migration, notions of inherent childhood innocence and juvenile justice were circumscribed by race. In documenting how blackness became a marker of criminality that overrode the potential protections the status of “child” could have bestowed, Tera Eva Agyepong shows the entanglements between race and the state’s transition to a more punitive form of juvenile justice.

A Report on the Status Offender Program (SOS)

1979 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 69-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott D. Moore ◽  
Paul F. Cromwell ◽  
Jerry M. Wood ◽  
Robert L. Woodert
Keyword(s):  
The Status ◽  
Status Offender

The Status Offender

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 3-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas D. Gill
Keyword(s):  
The Status ◽  
Status Offender

The Status Offense Dilemma: Coercion and Treatment

1976 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 456-460 ◽  
Author(s):  
Howard Abadinsky
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Juvenile Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Coercive Power ◽  
Status Offenders ◽  
Status Offense ◽  
The Status ◽  
Status Offenses ◽  
Court Process

Despite its failure to live up to its high aspirations and goals, the juvenile court continues to retain jurisdiction over status offenses. Retention of this jurisdiction is predicated on the "need" for the court's coercive power. The juvenile court process stigmatizes children, and the treatment it provides is both costly and ineffective. The court should reduce the number and narrow the categories of young persons now subject to its coercion, at the same time that it intensifies research efforts. Alternatives to the juvenile court that are utilized in Scandinavia and some other countries should be used in the United States for status offenders.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document