Enforcement of status offenses involves the arrest of the offender, referral of the case to the juvenile court, detention according to the prerogative of state institutions, adjudication by the case, and disposition of the case that could involve probation, fine, community service, treatment, counseling or out-of-home placement (OJJDP 5-6). Shifting perspectives towards more effective approaches can explain the recent decline in the enforcement of status offenses.
There has been less enforcement of status offenses because of renewed advocacy for the requirement of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) of 1974 that young people charged with status offenses are not to be confined in locked detention facilities (Kim 851). According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), the rationale for this requirement is to promote the separation of status offenders from the juvenile justice system and their placement in “less restrictive, service-intensive, community-based programs” (2). States are obliged to comply with the requirement of the JJDPA. Although an amendment to the JJDPA in 1980 provided an exception, the general rule on separating status offenders from juvenile offenders remained in force. The amendment provided states with the prerogative to consider the placement of status offenders in locked confinement in instances when they violate a court order to refrain from status offending. Exercise of this discretion has the effect of considering the status offence as a delinquent offence subject to placement in juvenile locked detention facilities. More than 25 states and Washington D.C. exercise their prerogative to exempt status offenders from being separated from the juvenile justice system. (OJJDP 2) However, the Supreme Court decision in the 1967 case of In re Gault compels the states to observe due process in exercising their prerogative to place status offenders in the juvenile system (Kim 852). Due process leads to stronger compliance with the OJJDP.
Less enforcement of status offenses is also due to stronger support for the rationality of and the public interest addressed by keeping status offenders away from detention. Contemporary thinking has shifted to the recognition that status offending are manifestations of personal issues, family problems, community influences, and general factors that may not necessarily create a pathway to juvenile and adult criminal behavior. Experimentation on behaviors is common. Experimentation allows young people to experience the adverse consequences of status offending. Most young people who engage in experimentation soon outgrow these behaviors to become law-abiding and contributing members of society. Detaining status offenders affects the likelihood of recurrence and escalation to more serious offences. Detaining status offenders does not lessen reoffending and, instead, increases reoffending for some young people. Association with juvenile offenders may expose status offenders to deviant behaviors they may not know how to do or never contemplated of doing before exposure to these behaviors in juvenile detention facilities. In addition, incarceration of status offenders puts them in the unnecessarily difficult situation of readjusting to life outside after their release. Difficulty readjusting also increases deviant behavior. Moreover, detaining status offenders in locked juvenile facilities, which operate with the primary purpose of retribution and incapacitation, may not be able to provide the appropriate support required by status offenders to address the underlying causes of status offending. Ultimately, incarcerating status offenders may do them more physical and psychological harm than good. (OJJDP 2-3) In the case of truancy by adolescents in shelters, police officers are reluctant to arrest status offenders because they will be placed in locked facilities where they will ran away from again. Police officers also prefer to apprehend young people not for status offences, but for criminal activities, such as possession of illicit drugs or petty theft. (Kim 864)
Emergence of alternative programs for status offenders also accounts for the lesser enforcement of status offences. Community-based intervention programs have emerged as the more appropriate approach to status offending, as opposed to having status offenders go through the processes of detention and incarceration. Based on the recognition that the underlying reasons for status offending have to be addressed, community-based programs provide support for status offenders and their families. Building and reinforcing family relations, positive social reinforcements, and other protective measures that community-based intervention programs offer more strongly, address the prevention of the escalation of status offending to more frequent status offending or to more serious juvenile criminal offenses. While community-based intervention is a broad program, there are also alternative approaches to status offending that address specific status offending behaviors. One such program is the ecological-based family therapy, which is done at the homes of status offenders to target truancy. The program works by identifying the reasons for truancy and opening dialogue in order to resolve issues within the family. Status offenders referred to the program were less likely to use alcohol and drugs. Another program is aggression replacement training, which benefits young people who ran away from shelters by focusing on managing aggression, building social skills, and developing moral reasoning as a means of changing negative attitudes and behaviors. Results indicate a 20% decrease in antisocial behavior for every adolescent in the program per week. (OJJDP 6-7) Use of these programs for status offending is increasingly preferred over the juvenile justice system.
Works Cited
Julie J. Kim. “Left Behind: The Paternalistic Treatment of Offenders within the Juvenile Justice System.” Washington University Law Review 87.4 (2010): 843-867. Print.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). Status Offenders. OJJDP, Sept. 2015. Web. 5 Mar. 2016.
