Abolishing Court Jurisdiction Over Status Offenders Anticipating the Unintended Consequences (From Juvenile Justice Policy, P 77-93, 1984, Scott H Decker, ed. - See NCJ-93299)

• NCJ Number: 93302
• Author(s): B E Spifo
• Date Published: 1984
• Length: 17 pages
• Sale Source: Sage Publications, Inc
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

Because service systems outside the juvenile justice system offer little promise to be more effective than the juvenile justice system in dealing with troubled youth now handled under the rubric of status offenders and nonintervention is not a rational option, abolition of juvenile justice jurisdiction over status offenders would be an unwise policy choice.

Abstract

This study examined the service needs of juvenile status offenders through an examination of the characteristics of a cohort of 460 youth who had been adjudicated as persons in need of supervision (PINS) or juvenile delinquents (JD's) for the first time during 1973 in Nassau County, N.Y. The characteristics considered were juvenile careers, court treatment, and psychosocial, familial, and demographic factors. The data indicate that PINS as well as JD's are troubled youth. Their families were under substantial stress which has led to impairments in functioning. All of the youth had made extensive use of community services before coming to the attention of the court, but their problems had not been resolved. It is unrealistic to suppose, as have many proponents of abolishing juvenile justice jurisdiction over status offenders, that the PINS youth are passing through a normal adolescent phase that will be resolved without intervention. Most were at high risk of evolving into serious delinquent careers. Further, transferring status offenders from juvenile justice auspices to the ministrations of child welfare and mental health professionals will entail substantial problems and risks. There is no persuasive evidence that treatment will be more effective or that the appropriate treatment will be provided. Also, status offenders would be in competition with the traditional clientele of these agencies for a share of services, and there will be fewer legal and due process safeguards than in the juvenile justice system. The juvenile justice system serves an important function as the court of last resort for its clientele. It is mandated and accountable for providing a range of services required by status offenders. Although juvenile justice experts have been correct in identifying a number of weaknesses in the method and type of services dispensed, the better approach would be to improve juvenile justice processing of status offenders rather than to abolish juvenile justice jurisdiction over them. Four notes and 54 references are provided.