Status Offenses Essay ⋆ Essays on Controversial Topics ⋆ EssayEmpire

Status offenses refer to conduct considered illegal only when committed by a minor. These acts of “noncriminal misbehavior” include running away, curfew violation, truancy, underage drinking or smoking, and ungovernability. Understanding status offenses as a contemporary social problem requires us to contextualize them within a historical perspective. Changing conceptions of gender, race/ethnicity, social class, family, and urbanization play a fundamental role in shaping their construction.

History of Status Offenses

During the colonial era, the family served as the model for morality and social order. In this period, the family—particularly the father—had ultimate legal autonomy to maintain discipline of children. Domestic matters such as childrearing remained in the private domain, and families viewed government attempts to intervene with suspicion. This authority met its first systematic challenge in the early 19th century, however, with the identification of poverty as a particularly pressing social ill. A centralized system of public and private institutions evolved to address poverty, and reformers worried about its nearly inevitable result—crime and vice.

As poverty, immigration, urbanization, and delinquency became inextricably linked in reformers’ consciousness, the children of the “dangerous classes” became the targets for institutional reform. Following the writings of Thomas Malthus, reformers worked to alleviate poverty and delinquency by inculcating the children of immigrant families with the virtues of hard work, self-control, and individualism. The first House of Refuge was instituted in New York City in 1825, soon followed by Boston in 1826 and Philadelphia in 1828. The education provided by these institutions, and at reformatories opened in the latter half of the 19th century, emphasized the acquisition of skills for agricultural and industrial work for boys and preparation for domestic servant positions for girls. In addition to instilling middle-class values and preparing youth for a working-class existence, this work was a chief source of revenue.

The first juvenile court, established in 1899, created a dual system of justice for juveniles and adults. While the primary response for adult offending was punishment, the juvenile court saw its role as intervention and rehabilitation. Viewing youthful offenders as innately pure and especially amenable to change, reformers worked to intervene before they encountered the “slippery slope” of criminality. The legal concept of parens patriae allowed the juvenile court far-reaching authority to intervene in the “best interests” of the child and his or her community. Almost any behavior, particularly those associated with poor ethnic immigrants (e.g., loitering and general idleness, begging, frequenting pool rooms), could suggest the need for intervention. Juvenile judges viewed their power to remove children from the home and commit them to institutions for moral education as both a means to support families that were unable to control their children and a way to address the failure of some parents to properly raise their children. Because these facilities were rehabilitative, not punitive, in nature, reformers failed to view the similar treatment for status offenders and delinquent law violators as problematic.

This practice continued, unchallenged until the 1960s, when youth workers began to advocate for the separation of status and delinquent juvenile offenders. Charging that status offender laws were essentially “omnibus” regulations whose vagueness allowed the court too much discretion, these advocates argued that placing status offenders in detention and reform facilities was not only unfair but ineffective. Moreover, they expressed concern about the stigma resulting from involvement in the juvenile justice system and the potential for harmful peer associations with delinquent offenders. As a result of their efforts, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) of 1974 made it illegal to house status offenders in secure detention. For the next 5 years, approximately 65,000 young people were held in custody for status offenses. Then, the proportion of status offenders in secure facilities declined dramatically, but the practice has not been completely eliminated.

Status Offenses Today

Since some states treat status offenders as dependency cases (often termed “in need of supervision”) and others are addressed through the juvenile justice system, current counts of status offenders are difficult to ascertain. Of the more than 2 million juvenile court cases processed annually, 16 percent are status offenses. One-fifth of status offenses are handled formally, led by charges for underage drinking (28 percent) and truancy (24 percent).

In 2003, juvenile facilities held just under 5,000 status offenders, an average of 5 percent of the total number of juveniles in custody. Status offenders are more likely to be held in private than in public facilities, in contrast to their delinquent counterparts. These private facilities are generally staff-secure (instead of locked) and involve longer stays in custody. More than one quarter (27 percent) of status offenders in detention facilities and 42 percent in residential placement are there as a result of ungovernability. Just over half (52 percent) of status offenders in custody are racial/ ethnic minorities, an increase from 41 percent in 1991.

Status offender laws disproportionately affect girls. Nearly one quarter of the girls housed in detention centers are there as a result of status offenses, compared to only 4 percent of boys. Most of these are runaways who have fled their homes as a result of sexual or physical abuse (60 percent of youth petitioned for running away are girls). Until better alternatives for females are widely available, however, secure detention facilities will continue to fill this service gap in the system.

Evidence suggests that the mental health system has become an alternative means of addressing the problem of status offenders. Private facilities have increased their advertising for parents encountering difficulties with their children’s substance abuse or other problem behavior. However, while the status offenders in the past were most likely referred by parents and schools, police are now responsible for half of the status offense referrals made to the juvenile court. As more major cities pass curfew ordinances and establish truancy courts, there will undoubtedly be continued shifts in the way status offenses are viewed and treated.

Bibliography:

Platt, Anthony M. 1977. The Child Savers: The Invention of Delinquency. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Roberts, Albert R., ed. 2004. Juvenile Justice Sourcebook: Past, Present, and Future. New York: Oxford University Press.
Schneider, Eric C. 1992. In the Web of Class: Delinquents and Reformers in Boston, 1810s-1930s. New York: New York University Press.
Siegel, Larry J., Brandon C. Welsh, and Joseph J. Senna. 2005. Juvenile Delinquency: Theory, Practice, and Law. 9th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Snyder, Howard N. and Melissa Sickmund. 2006. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Teitlebaum, Lee. 2002. “Status Offenses and Status Offenders.” Pp. 158-75 in A Century of Juvenile Justice, edited by M. K. Rosenbaum, F. E. Zimring, D. S. Tanenhaus, and B. Dohrn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

This example Status Offenses Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.