Juvenile Justice and Status Offenses - Essay Example

Juvenile Justice Module 7 Writing Introduction Status offending is any offense committed by juveniles but would not be considered as offense if committed by an adult according to the ordinances of the jurisdiction which the offense was committed (Elrod and Ryder 362). Status offending is behaviors and acts only that are only committed by juveniles such as running away and truancy. Status offending also includes acts that are lawful for adults but illegal for children such as sexual intimacy and drinking alcohol. Smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol and sexual intimacy is legal for adults thus not offense (Elrod and Ryder 362). Delinquent offender is a crime or antisocial behavior that is committed by juveniles and is also considered as a crime if committed by adults. Status offenses are only committed by juveniles (Elrod and Ryder 362). Juveniles’ courts have intervened in the lives of status offenders. There are several arguments that have been put forward for and against for the legal basis of juvenile courts intervening in the lives of status offenders (Elrod and Ryder 363). Proponents of juvenile court intervention assert that status offenders have unique needs that can only be provided by the juvenile court intervention. For instance, many status offenders suffer from family neglect (Elrod and Ryder 363). Treatment of the status offenders require more financial resources than delinquent offender’s treatment thus this services can only be provided by juvenile courts. Status offenses will escalate to more criminal behaviors in the future since running away from home may lead to robbery if the courts fail to intervene. Status offenders are at more risk of victimization and death since incorrigibility expose the youths to drugs and prostitution. Juvenile courts have a primary mission of protecting the interests of children thus they have a duty of supporting lawful parental authority. Compulsory education laws would be undermined if juvenile courts relinquish authority over status offenders (Elrod and Ryder 363). On the other hand, critics of juvenile court involvement in Status offender lives assert that such intervention is ineffective and inappropriate since it may lead to more harm (Elrod and Ryder 364). Social agencies are better equipped to deal with Status offenders since juvenile courts lack the necessary expertise and financial resources to offer the required services. The processing of the status offense lead to labeling thus status offenders receive harsh punishment and are likely to engage in more antisocial behaviors (Elrod and Ryder 364). Status offenses revolve around family problems thus no need of juvenile court intervention since it hinders the responsibility of schools and social institutions in solving the community problems (Elrod and Ryder 364). In my opinion, the juvenile courts should not intervene in Status offenses since it is a violation of the constitution since all citizens should be protected equally regardless of age, race or color. The laws tend to be harsh towards children from poor families who are more likely to be subjected to cruel punishment like the delinquent offenders. Such intervention removes the parental responsibility on the behavior of juveniles and transfers it to the children. Juvenile courts involvement in the lives of status offenders dates back to the development of the parens patriae legal concept (Elrod and Ryder 365). Juvenile courts were designed to deal with delinquent juveniles and also troublesome children. The state has the duty to protect children and several statutes outline the duties of parents and teachers to the children. Legal statutes require the children to attend school regularly and obey curfews, and not to run away from the family (Elrod and Ryder 366). Some states refer status offenders as children in need of supervision (CHINS). The historical basis for juvenile courts intervention in status offenders is rooted in the Biblical passage that children are supposed to obey their parents (Elrod and Ryder 367). Poor children were seen as potential future criminals thus there was a need of legal response to behaviors such as idleness and truancy. Juvenile courts have ordered status offenders to probation. The juvenile Justice and Delinquent Prevention Act provided for detention of juveniles like the status offenders. Some people argue that status offenses lead to more serious criminal offenses and victimization. However, a distinction must be made between status offender and delinquent juveniles. Delinquent juveniles need correction while status offenders seek protection from the juvenile courts (Elrod and Ryder 370). The cafeteria-style approaches to delinquency require treatment of status offenders as delinquent juveniles since few differences exist in their behaviors. According to Charles Thomas study of court records of juveniles between 1970 and 1974, 50.3 percent of the juveniles were charged with misdemeanors, 22.3 percent with felonies and 27.3 with status offenses (Elrod and Ryder 371). In the follow up study, 40 percent of the initial status offenders were referred again to the court still as status offenders while 60 percent were referred for a second time for a criminal offense (Elrod and Ryder 371). According to Howard Snyder study of the National Center for Juvenile justice, 50 percent of youth referred as status offenders were also referred for a criminal offense. The study found not differences between status offenders and delinquent criminals. According to Steven Clarke study on juvenile offenders in Philadelphia, juveniles initially arrested for a criminal offense were more likely to commit a second offense than status offenders. 61 percent of criminal offenders and 30 percent of the status offenders had more than two offenses (Elrod and Ryder 371). 21 percent of criminal juveniles while 10 percent of status offenders had more than five arrests (chronic offenders). According to Thomas Kelly study, juvenile courts assist recidivism since status offenders are different from delinquent criminals. Recent studies in South Carolina indicate differences in status offenders and delinquent criminals since truants are more young and mainly come from minority groups. Generally, the above findings indicate similarity of behaviors of the status offenders and delinquent criminal offenders (Elrod and Ryder 371). There are various innovations that are been proved as effective if the juvenile courts do not process status offenders. The Sacramento County 601 diversion program has involved the police, the parents and juvenile courts in counseling the status offenders. The program has proved to be beneficial in eliminating juvenile offenses (Elrod and Ryder 377). Another innovation is the career academies where teachers and students have close working relationships. Such solution has reduced the truancy levels and increased the academic course taking. Another strategy is the chronic Truancy initiative (CTI) for elementary students that target the chronic truants (Elrod and Ryder 378). Multisystemic therapy has been effective in improving the social and family relationships. The approach aims at identifying problems in the social set up and building working relationships with families and teachers. In my opinion, I would give the authority to school administrators since they spend most of the time with the status offenders. The school administrators have the expertise to identify the social problems facing the status offenders (Elrod and Ryder 378). There are several leading causes of juvenile crimes. Juvenile violence is influenced by peer pressure, family background, income levels and cultural background (Elrod and Ryder 402). The cultural context of juvenile violence suggests that violence is related to the cultural make up of the United States. Violence has traditionally being used to advance group interests like civil rights protests, anti-war protests and women rights protests (Elrod and Ryder 402). Other ongoing conflicts include environmentalists, minority and majority conflicts, and men and women conflicts. Children are exposed to the violence through viewing televisions, listening to radio and CD tapes. This suggests that children who watch more violent movies and television programs are more likely to result to violence. I agree with the cultural context since children adapt these violent norms at their young age. Most of the violent videos depicts violent as something that is good and deserves a reward. Watching violent movies and televisions leads to aggressive behavior that later result to juvenile violence (Elrod and Ryder 403). Research indicates that the community and peer groups play a critical part in determining juvenile violence. Juvenile delinquency is related to the communities’ economic and social structures (Elrod and Ryder 404). Unemployment and poverty force many youths to engage in robbery and violence especially in the minority communities like Hispanics. Social disorganization in the community leads to violent juvenile crimes. Increase in population density leads to income inequality in the community and feelings of social isolation. Socially isolated youths are more likely to affiliate themselves with violent gangs in the community (Elrod and Ryder 404). The society can alleviate some issues that lead to juvenile violence. The society should provide employment opportunities for youth. The society should reduce the exposure of the youths to violent gangs, violence and drugs. The society should provide compulsory education so that the youths can secure decent jobs. The society should promote social cohesion of families (Elrod and Ryder 404). The family is the immediate social institution that influences the socialization and development of the child (Elrod and Ryder 408). Family factors influence the likelihood of children engaging in violence. Family breakups and lack of parental discipline leads to juvenile delinquent behaviors. Low family income may lead to disruptive family relations that lead to psychological trauma and juvenile violence (Elrod and Ryder 408). Harsh physical abuse of the child will encourage aggressive behaviors and later lead to juvenile violence. Child neglect is the leading cause of juvenile violence since it causes child developmental problems. Communities may mitigate the family impact on juvenile violence by ensuring cohesive family relationships. Communities must ensure children receive the appropriate parental discipline and guidance. Communities should reduce harsh child punishment and exposure to violence. Communities should establish facilities for counseling neglected children (Elrod and Ryder 408). The individual biological and psychological makeup may influence juvenile violence. Biological abnormalities may influence delinquent behaviors (Elrod and Ryder 410). The genetic makeup of the individual influences the functioning of the central nervous system. The brain functions determine the antisocial behaviors of the individual. For instance, identical twins show same response to criminal behavior. The lower the individual Intelligence quotient (IQ), the higher is the likelihood of engaging in delinquent behaviors. Neurological dysfunctions such as MBD, learning disabilities and hormonal imbalances can lead to delinquent behaviors. Children who display attention deficits, temperaments and hyperactivity are more likely to engage in violent criminal behaviors in their adult life (Elrod and Ryder 412). Children suffering from psychological abnormalities also suffer from biological defects. For instance, psychopathic personalities lead to low arousal due to defect in the autonomic nervous system thus the individual will have to react violently in order to attain stimulation (Elrod and Ryder 412). There are numerous juvenile violence prevention responses that have been implemented. Several states have enacted laws to deal with violent juvenile violence. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) developed a comprehensive for dealing with chronic and violent juvenile offenders (Elrod and Ryder 413). Prevention programs focus on individual characteristics, schooling experience, family issues and peer group influence. Illinois has established a violence prevention fund that receives grants for financing different programs. Mississippi and Massachusetts violence prevention programs are examples of programs that address youth problems (Elrod and Ryder 413). Maryland communities have implemented Late-night basketball programs that aim at reducing drug-related and violent crimes. Pennsylvania has established family support centers and youth sports leagues in order to control violent juvenile offenses (Elrod and Ryder 414). The Gang Resistance Education and Training Program that is taught by uninformed police officers encourage youths to improve their self-esteem and resist peer influence and violent behaviors (Elrod and Ryder 415). Another prevention effort is multisystemic effort therapy that entails building relationships between parents, teachers and youths. Juvenile Rehabilitation and Day treatment centers like Bethesda Day Treatment Center program provides counseling, services, encourages cultural enrichment and skills training in order to reduce violent juvenile offenses. Institutional placements through offering secure facilities like the Florida Environmental Institute have proved effective in reducing serious juvenile offense (Elrod and Ryder 415). Conclusion Status offenses are offenses that are only committed by children. They include running away from home, smoking cigarettes and immorality. Juvenile courts have intervened in status offenses in order to advance the welfare of the children and ensure compulsory school attendance. Delinquent offenses are criminal offenses that are committed by juveniles and are also considered offenses if committed by adults. Violent juvenile behavior and antisocial behavior are influenced by peer groups, family relationships, biological make up, cultural values and community set up. Several preventive programs like counseling and day care treatment have reduced the instances of violent juvenile offenses. Works cited: Elrod, Preston and Ryder, Scott. Juvenile justice: a social, historical and legal perspective. Sudbury. Jones and Bartlett Publishers. 2011. Read More