Changing Boundaries of the Juvenile Court - Practice and Policy in Minnesota

• NCJ Number: 83621
• Author(s): L A Osbun; P A Rode
• Date Published: 1982
• Length: 92 pages
• Corporate Author: Minnesota State Supreme Court
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

The Minnesota Supreme Court Juvenile Justice Study Commission presents findings and recommendations on status offenses, alternatives to the formal juvenile court process, and transfer of juveniles to the adult criminal system.

Abstract

In Minnesota, status offenders are currently handled under the juvenile court's delinquency jurisdiction. The Commission recommends that all status offenders be removed from the court's delinquency jurisdiction to be handled under separate jurisdictional categories which specify limits on detention and dispositions. Although a number of jurisdictions currently have procedures and programs which provide for some juvenile offenders to be screened and diverted from the juvenile court, some do not. Among the jurisdictions with diversion options, there is significant variability in eligibility requirements, program structure, and services provided. Based on its conclusions that first-time and minor offenders often require less intervention than that provided by formal court processing and that greater consistency in diversion is desirable, the Commission recommends consideration of the testing and development of a statewide alternative to the juvenile court process. The model suggested by the Commission involves the use of a 'settlement conference' for handling some juvenile offenders. Research on reference practices found that in outstate Minnesota, there has been a significant decline in the number of juveniles transferred to the adult system for minor offenses, largely because of the statutory granting of fining authority to the juvenile court. Further, reference practices in the metropolitan counties have remained relatively constant despite legislative modifications of the reference statute. The Commission recommends that judicial discretion in transfer decisions be retained. Appended are discussions and analyses of Commission funding sources, juvenile court intervention in status offense cases, school delinquency problems and policies, and prosecuting youths as adults. For the latter three appendixes, see NCJ 83622-24. (Author summary modified)