NCJ Number
82301
Journal
Ohio State Law Journal Volume: 42 Issue: 4 Dated: (1981) Pages: 1005-1023
Date Published
1981
Length
19 pages
Annotation
This paper addresses problems raised by the Joint Institute of Judicial Administration-American Bar Association Juvenile Justice Standards Commission's proposal to abolish status offense jurisdiction, evaluates other reform plans, and suggests an alternative revision of juvenile court jurisdiction.
Abstract
The present juvenile justice system has exhibited a marked philosophical contradiction in its legal development as the parens patriae doctrine failed to promote rehabilitation and led to arbitrary judicial actions. Since In re Gault, the Supreme Court has recognized many due process rights in delinquency proceedings, but left status offenders who have committed no criminal offense caught in the middle. The status offender also exists in a constitutional limbo that often provides only uncertain protection from State action. The value of right to counsel is minimal, and many status offense laws are intentionally vague to give broad jurisdictional rights. Despite attacks on the vagueness of these laws, courts still maintain that all adult procedural rights cannot be applied to the juvenile system. Other critics of equal protection violations contend that status offenders are treated differently from adults, and girls are often treated differently from boys. Several studies have contradicted the legal differences between delinquents and status offenders by finding few differences in the psychological development and offense history of the two groups. Other commentators have advocated abolishing the status offense jurisdiction, emphasizing voluntary treatment and expanded family services. An alternative plan would impose due process safeguards on all juvenile proceedings. Cases coming before the juvenile court would be divided into three groups: those not requiring intervention, those who need a low level of intervention, and dangerous juveniles who should be separated from the community. The second group would provide the bulk of cases and be afforded the widest range of dispositions. The article includes 116 footnotes.