An Evaluation of the Status Offense Diversion Program in the Juvenile Court of Washtenaw County, Michigan

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald E. Shelton
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Court ◽  
Diversion Program ◽  
Status Offense ◽  
The Status ◽  
Washtenaw County

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. '

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document