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.

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.

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.

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.

Race, Legal Representation, and Juvenile Justice: Issues and Concerns

2004 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 344-371 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lori Guevara ◽  
Cassia Spohn ◽  
Denise Herz
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
Juvenile Court ◽  
White Youth ◽  
Juvenile Courts ◽  
Legal Representation ◽  
Court Referrals ◽  
Using Data ◽  
To Receive

The objective of this study was to examine the influence of type of counsel across race on juvenile court outcomes. Using data from a sample of juvenile court referrals from two midwestern juvenile courts, this study examined the interaction of race and type of counsel on disposition outcome. The results indicated that youth without an attorney were the most likely to have the charges dismissed, and this effect was more pronounced for non-White youth. In addition, non-White youth represented by a private attorney were significantly more likely than similar White youth to receive a secure confinement disposition.

Juvenile (In)Justice and the Criminal Court Alternative

1993 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 403-424 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barry C. Feld
Keyword(s):  
Procedural Justice ◽  
Juvenile Court ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
Juvenile Courts ◽  
Therapeutic Purpose ◽  
Status Offenders ◽  
Policy Responses ◽  
Serious Offenders ◽  
Formal Procedures

The juvenile court has been transformed from an informal, welfare agency into a scaled-down, second-class criminal court as a result of a series of reforms that divert status offenders, waive serious offenders to adult criminal courts, punish delinquent offenders, and provide more formal procedures. There are three plausible policy responses to juvenile courts that punish in the name of treatment and deny elementary procedural justice: (a) restructure juvenile courts to fit their original therapeutic purpose; (b) accept punishment as the purpose of delinquency proceedings, but coupled with criminal procedural safeguards; or (c) abolish juvenile courts and try young offenders in criminal courts with certain substantive and procedural modifications.

scholarly journals La justice des mineurs au Québec : 25 ans de transformations (1960-1985)

Criminologie ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 189-213 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean Trépanier
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Juvenile Justice System ◽  
Juvenile Court ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Young Offenders ◽  
Court Referrals ◽  
Court Dispositions ◽  
Legislative Changes ◽  
Over Time

This paper provides an overview of some of the changes undergone by the juvenile justice system in Quebec since 1960, with a particular attention to the evolution of its legal framework. Major legislative changes have stressed children's rights and diversion. The underlying philosophy of the law has been changed extensively, particularly concerning young offenders. Statistics reveal that the number of court referrals has increased considerably over time, and that diversion policies have been unable to change this trend. Juvenile court dispositions seem to show a greater degree of intervention than before.

Juvenile Aid Panels: An Alternative to Juvenile Court Processing in South Australia

1980 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosemary Sarri ◽  
Patrick W. Bradley
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Juvenile Justice System ◽  
Juvenile Court ◽  
South Australia ◽  
Juvenile Courts ◽  
Status Offenders ◽  
Court Processing

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document