Female Status Offenders and Justice Reforms: An International Perspective

1982 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 109-122 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda Hancock ◽  
Meda Chesney-Lind

Females are treated differently from males in the juvenile justice system. While the majority of males appear in juvenile court on charges of illegal behaviour, most females appear on “status offence” grounds, that is, for behaviour that only juveniles under a particular age can be brought to police or court attention. Females charged on moral or status offences are treated more harshly than males. However, when they are charged with illegal behaviour, females are treated more leniently which is appropriate, since delinquent girls are generally involved in less serious criminal behaviour than boys. In principle, the juvenile court was set up to protect juveniles and, by giving wide powers of discretion to law enforcers, to facilitate decisions in young offenders' best interests. In practice, particular categories of youth are treated more harshly than others. Evidence indicates that those females appearing on status offence charges (often from socially and economically disadvantaged backgrounds) are discriminated against on the basis of their sexual behaviour. This paper describes the present situation and outlines the failures of attempts at legislative changes in the definition and processing of juvenile status offenders in the United States and Australia. These examples show that the double standard of juvenile justice is international; not simply an artifact of one nation's court system. Treating status offence problems within a criminal justice system has destructive and damaging effects which may only intensify the problems from which such youth are ostensibly being protected.

2001 ◽  
Vol 81 (2) ◽  
pp. 187-205 ◽  
Author(s):  
RONALD J. SEYKO

On November 17, 1995, the governor of Pennsylvania signed into law Special Session Act 33 of 1995, which redefined the purpose of Pennsylvania's juvenile justice system to incorporate the principles of the Balanced Approach and Restorative Justice (BARJ) philosophy. This article describes the genesis of the new law, explains the BARJ model, and illustrates the effect that the law is having on the juvenile court system in Allegheny County. The article specifically focuses on the numerous projects that the Allegheny County juvenile probation department has instituted to meet the BARJ obligation.


1980 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosemary Sarri ◽  
Patrick W. Bradley

Diversion and other alternatives to juvenile court processing are being used increasingly in many countries. Juvenile aid panels were developed and implemented in South Australia as a part of the 1971 revised Juvenile Courts Act. Findings from the study of a five-year cohort of youths pro cessed through the juvenile aid panels and the juvenile court are presented and analyzed. The findings indicate that the rate of reappearance of youths processed through the panels was essentially similar to that of youths processed through the court. Thus, as far as the criterion of re cidivism is concerned, this more benign and less stigmatizing mechanism is at least as effective as court processing. Panels were not successful in removing all minor and status offenders from processing in the court, nor were the numbers of cases processed by the court reduced as a result of the panels. Quite the opposite—the entire juvenile justice system grew rapidly during this five-year period, largely because of increased numbers pro cessed by the panels.


1977 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 133-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wolfgang L Grichting

The handling of status offenders is reviewed in the context of the historical development of juvenile justice in this country. Discrepancies between the legal code and the actual practice are noted and discussed in the light of present tendencies and likely developments concerning status offenders. On the basis of a nationally representative sample of 1467 juvenile offenders a procedure is developed to estimate the actual number of status offenders committed to public correctional facilities in the nation as a whole and in the 48 contiguous states. These estimates are correlated with a battery of socio-demographic factors. The analysis suggests that the phenomenon of status offenders is mainly a problem of the modern way of life characterized by urbanization, industrialization, and affluence. Some policy recommendations are the natural result of the present analysis. The noble intention of the justice system to exempt minors from the full force of criminal law ironically has resulted in one of the worst legal situations on record (Platt, 1969; Mattick and Aikman, 1969; Sarri, 1974). In 1899 Illinois became the first state to enact a juvenile court act, and within thirty years all but two states had followed suit by drafting special juvenile statutes designed to eliminate formal procedures and stigmatizing labels for minors and to emphasize individual treatment on the basis of parens patriae ideologies. Since the juvenile justice system was intended strictly for the protection and well-being of the youth, neither procedural guidelines nor jurisdictional boundaries were thought necessary for inclusion in juvenile statutes (Levin and Sarri, 1974). The lack of such regulations as well as extensive misconceptions of the goals of the reformers have resulted in a most tragic overreach by the juvenile justice system: the presumed or actual possession of jurisdiction over status offenders (Lemert, 1970). A status offender is commonly defined as a minor who engages in conduct which would not result in a criminal charge if committed by an adult. Typical examples of such conduct are “truancy”, “running away”, “using profanity”, “growing up in idleness”, and “incorrigibility”. These examples make clear that status offenses refer to both violation of specific ordinances and to general character or personality shortcomings and disorders. The indiscriminate handling of status offenders thus not only offends our sense of justice but also invites serious questioning of the efficacy of the present approach to cope with status offenders. In short, an institution designed to protect the most vulnerable population — the nation's youth, that is — has turned into a formal procedure by the system in which “the child is least helped and most abused” (Orlando, 1975). The failure to distinguish between status offenses and violations of penal laws by minors has resulted in jammed pretrial detention centers, inadequate and perfunctory court processing, and oversized correctional facilities crowded with status offenders and serious delinquents (including murderers) together. Thus immeasurable damage is inflicted upon youth at an absolutely forbidding cost to society at large. For these reasons the handling of status offenders should be removed from the juvenile justice system and be entrusted to a special service organization which does not have judicial power over its clients. Recent Supreme Court decisions have begun to move in this direction, 1 but few states thus far have successfully incorporated this development into the juvenile statutes, and no state has fully implemented the rulings issued by the highest court in this land. In this paper an attempt is made (1) to review the statutory distinctions and disposition differences concerning status offenders and juvenile delinquents, (2) to estimate the number of detained status offenders as a percentage of all the youth committed to public correctional facilities, 2 and (3) to examine some structural correlates of the forty-eight contiguous states which might explain the differences in the proportion of status offenders detained in public correctional facilities.


2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith M. Dunkerly ◽  
Julia Morris Poplin

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to challenge the “single story” narrative the authors utilize counterstorytelling as an analytic tool to reveal the paradox of exploring human rights with incarcerated BIPOC teens whose rights within the justice system are frequently ignored. Shared through their writing, drawing and discussions, the authors demonstrate how they wrote themselves into narratives that often sought to exclude them.Design/methodology/approachThis paper centers on the interpretations of Universal Human Rights by Black adolescents involved in the juvenile justice system in the Southeastern region of the United States. Critical ethnography was selected as we see literacy as a socially situated and collaborative practice. Additionally, the authors draw from recent work on the humanization of qualitative methods, especially when engaging with historically oppressed populations. Data were analyzed using a bricolage approach and the framework of counterstorytelling to weave together the teens' narratives and experiences.FindingsIn using the analytic tool of counterstories, the authors look at ways in which the stories of colonially underserved BIPOC youth might act as a form of resistance. Similarly to the ways that those historically enslaved in the United States used narratives, folklore, “black-preacher tales” and fostered storytelling skills to resist the dominant narrative and redirects the storylines from damage to desire-centered. Central then to our findings is the notion of how to engage in the work of dismantling the inequitable system that even well-intentioned educators contribute to due to systemic racism.Research limitations/implicationsThe research presented here is significant as it attempts to add to the growing body of research on creating spaces of resistance and justice for incarcerated youth. The authors seek to disrupt the “single story” often attributed to adolescents in the juvenile justice system by providing spaces for them to provide a counternarrative – one that is informed by and seeks to inform human rights education.Practical implicationsAs researchers, the authors struggle with aspects related to authenticity, identity and agency for these participants. By situating them as “co-researchers” and by inviting them to decide where the research goes next, the authors capitalize on the expertise, ingenuity and experiences' of participants as colleagues in order to locate the pockets of hope that reside in research that attempts to be liberatory and impact the children on the juvenile justice system.Social implicationsThis study emphasizes the importance of engaging in research that privileges the voices of the participants in research that shifts from damage to desire-centered. The authors consider what it may look like to re-situate qualitative research in service to those we study, to read not only their words but the worlds that inform them, to move toward liberatory research practice.Originality/valueThis study provides an example of how the use of counterstorytelling may offer a more complex and nuanced way for incarcerated youth to resist the stereotypes and single-story narratives often assigned to their experiences.


2009 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Angkasa Angkasa ◽  
Saryono Hanadi ◽  
Muhammad Budi Setyadi

Legal fundament of implementation of restorative justice in the phase investigation of juvenile justice system  in Indonesia stated in article 5 sentence (1) Law No. 8 Year 1981 concerning KUHAP; article 42 Law No. 3 Year 1997 concerning juvenile court, article 16 sentence ( 1) letter (l), sentence (2) and article 18  Law No. 2 Year 2002 concerning Police Department of Republic of Indonesia, Confidential Telegram of Kabareskrim No. Pol. TR/359/DIT,I/VI/2008. Mediation Perpetrator and Victim in the course of Jurisdiction of Child in jurisdiction territory of prison in Purwokerto, in the form of peace among victim and perpetrator of this child, is conducted in inspection phase, is in prosecution phase and inspection of justice have never been conducted by mediation. Implementation of Mediation in case of child in Jurisdiction territory of Bapas Purwokerto, not yet earned a Restorative Justice Model. This Matter is based on fact that goals of this mediation practice tend to only aim to decontrol continuation. Kata kunci: Juvenile Justice System; Restorative Justice Model; Mediation; prison


1973 ◽  
Vol 32 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1119-1124 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger Woodbury

The study investigated (1) the differences in attitudes toward legal agencies between white and black delinquents, (2) group differences on anomie scales and (3) intergroup correlational analyses among attitudes toward legal agencies and anomie scales. A random sample of delinquents (73 white and 73 black) were administered measures of attitudes toward the police, juvenile court, probation and anomie. t tests of significance and z tests using Fisher's r to z transformation assessed group differences. White delinquents had more unfavorable attitudes toward the juvenile court while black delinquents had more hostile attitudes toward the police. White delinquents had more feelings of valuelessness and hopelessness. Black delinquents had more of powerlessness. Correlations suggest that attitudes toward legal agencies and those of anomie may be acquired independently.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document