NCJ Number: 93249
Title: Status Offenders and Juvenile Court - A Proposal for Revamping Jurisdiction
Journal: Ohio State Law Journal Volume:42 Dated:(1981) Pages:1005-1023
Author(s): K Erlenbach
Date Published: 1981
Page Count: 19
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This comment addresses the problems raised by those favoring abolition of the status offense jurisdiction, discusses proposals for change, and offers a new proposal for revamping the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.
Abstract: The current methods of handling juvenile status offenders are seriously deficient, although the courts remain the proper forum for deciding such cases. The elimination of status offense jurisdiction from the juvenile courts is undoubtedly too radical a step for most State legislatures and may do more harm than good. Retaining the present system, however, ignores the inequities inherent in it. Among the many complaints about the juvenile justice system, several problems seem especially detrimental to its effectiveness. First, the system shows a marked philosophical contradiction in its legal development. Second, the status offender exists in a sort of constitutional limbo that often provides only uncertain protection from State action. Finally, the juvenile system implies distinctions about delinquents and status offenders that are neither empirically supported nor legally consistent. Together, these criticisms present a strong indictment of the present juvenile jurisdiction statutes. The most frequently suggested alternative to court jurisdiction is the assignment of the problem to a social service agency. But the problems of vagueness of standards would only multiply under this procedure. The solution thus must be found in the courts which at least must adhere to the interpretations handed down by higher courts. The restructuring of the juvenile courts' jurisdiction proposed addresses the problems of status offender jurisdiction. This system would separate juvenile cases before the juvenile court into three groups: those not requiring intervention, those requiring a low level of intervention, and those requiring separation of the youthful offender from the community. A total of 116 footnotes accompany the text. (Author summary modified)
Index Term(s): Court reform; Equal Protection; Juvenile court diversion; Juvenile court procedures; Juvenile courts; Juvenile status offenders; Right to counsel; Runaways; Youthful offenders
To cite this abstract, use the following link: http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=93249
. A title search of 