Status Offenders Can Be Different:

1983 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 365-379 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas M. Kelley
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
Juvenile Court ◽  
Status Offenders ◽  
Status Offense ◽  
Cogent Argument

Numerous scholars and program planners have argued vehemently for the removal of status offenders from the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Perhaps the most cogent argument for the removal of such offenses from the juvenile codes concerns the vagueness of status offense statutes, which permits flexible interpretation and serves as an invitation to arbitrary and capricious enforcement as well as procedural and due process inequities.

Do Status Offenders Get Worse? Some Clarifications on the Question of Escalation

1989 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 202-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Randall G. Shelden ◽  
John A. Horvath ◽  
Sharon Tracy
Keyword(s):  
Longitudinal Study ◽  
Juvenile Court ◽  
Status Offenders ◽  
Arrest Record ◽  
Status Offense ◽  
Court Referrals

Data from a longitudinal study of juvenile court referrals reveal that whether or not status offenders “escalate” is dependent upon gender and the specific type of status offense committed. Specifically, male status offenders were found to be more likely than females to escalate. Also, runaways and unmanageables were far less likely to escalate than those who were first referred for truancy, curfew, and liquor law violations. Status offenders are also compared with other offenders in terms of the total number of subsequent referrals and whether or not a youth had an arrest record as an adult. Some of the problems associated with the study of status offenders are discussed.

Are Status Offenders Really So Different?

1976 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 438-455 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles W. Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Empirical Research ◽  
Juvenile Court ◽  
Juvenile Courts ◽  
Substantial Body ◽  
Large Sample ◽  
Status Offenders ◽  
Status Offense ◽  
Status Offenses ◽  
Court Appearance

Numerous authorities have argued convincingly that what have been termed "status offenses" should be removed from the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Perhaps the most cogent rationale that has been advanced in this regard flows directly from the statutory and procedural inequity that is clearly demonstrated by this vaguely defined set of offenses. Unfortunately, many advocates of reform have gone on to argue that a substantial body of empirical research has shown that (1) status offenders are not a significant threat to society because they have not been and generally will not become involved in more serious offenses and (2) any movement toward more serious involvement stems more from the stig matizing consequences of formal legal processing than from any other source. Such assertions are based on insufficient or nonexistent empirical evidence. Indeed, this analysis, based on an examination of the offense histories of a large sample of juveniles who appeared before one of two urban juvenile courts on one or more occasions during a five-year period, shows that many juveniles charged with status offenses have previously been charged with other types of offenses, that juveniles whose first court appearance involved a status offense are more likely to recidivate than those first charged with a misdemeanor or a felony, and that there is little or no evidence to support the contention that legal processing is associated with subsequent involvement in more serious delinquency. '

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.

Legal Aid for Children: Some Reflections

1979 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 29-32
Author(s):  
Brian Lucas
Keyword(s):  
United States Of America ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Juvenile Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fourteenth Amendment ◽  
Court System ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Legal Aid ◽  
Legal Representation ◽  
The Supreme Court

In its Second Main Report, Law and Poverty in Australia, the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty expressed the view that “legal representation for children appearing before the children's court, whether in the criminal or protective jurisdiction, is necessary if justice is to be done.”This view coincides with the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in In re Gault. It has been said that this decision “unleashed a frontal assault on the juvenile court system.” It confirmed that juveniles were entitled to “due process” and the same protection which the Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights afforded to adults.

Retain the Juvenile Court?

1979 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 281-298 ◽  
Author(s):  
H.Ted Rubin
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Juvenile Offenders ◽  
Juvenile Court ◽  
Juvenile Courts ◽  
Status Offenders

Several trends are discernible in today's juvenile court: a harsher ap proach to serious, chronic juvenile offenders, though this orientation is not shared by all juvenile courts; an easing of punitiveness toward status offenders, characterized by reduced intervention and curbs on incarcera tion, an expansion of the prosecutor's decision-making role at intake.

The Lawyer and His Juvenile Court Client

1966 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 165-169
Author(s):  
Junius L. Allison
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
Juvenile Court ◽  
The Right

Lawyers representing clients in the juvenile court play a nec essary and constructive role. Any division of the judicial branch of government that has authority to summon persons and ques tion them with the further power to separate them from their parents and deprive them of their liberty is a court, and one with sanctions, where constitutional due process and especially the right to counsel should not be forgotten.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document