Decriminalization of Juvenile Status Offenses, Essay Example

A status offense refers to an act taken to be chargeable or wrongful when a minor commits (Arthur & Waugh, 2008). Therefore, such offenses are not considered criminal or chargeable when committed by adults. Such offenses concentrate on morality issues. They include examples of offenses such as use of illegal drugs or alcohol, sexual behaviour, truancy and running away amongst others.

Decriminalization of status offenses should not occur. Status offenses have helped the society a great deal in addressing the quest for morality in the youth and decriminalizing them will lead to a collapse in morality in the society. Status offenses should continue in the juvenile justice system provided the provisions for children stipulated under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act are followed to the later as noted by Lipsey et al. (2010). Status offenses facilitate correction of juveniles by isolating them from the pollution and corruption they would get under the influence of the wrong group. Professional gangs who cause havoc in cities, towns and hamlets are those were juveniles at one point, but who did not receive early attention or intervention, thus they ended up as adult criminals (Ibid). Status offenses exist to enable correctional facilities provide a remedy for ungovernable juveniles. The aim is to facilitate reformation in their lives. While serving sentences applicable to status offenses, the juveniles can still get their rights including food, health and education. However, these did not exist only until the juvenile justice system learned that some juveniles were undergoing terrible mistreatments of incarcerations.

Status offense sentences also allow family members participate in influencing the correction of the offender. In this case, the punishment could involve a probation period in which the juvenile offender is under the watch of family members and keeps reporting to probation officers until the end of the probation period (Arthur & Waugh, 2008). Therefore, great success in reforming the juvenile offender can be realized. Status offenses have helped in shaping the society for long. Considering the work it has done in deterring the use of alcohol at young age and discouraging the use of drugs the laws are justified. The use of alcohol by the juveniles would be so rampant without the status laws. These juveniles are people who are still young to have sufficient skills in making informed decisions; therefore, engaging in alcohol consumption would ruin their ability to make sound judgments (Ibid). It is crucial that the Juvenile Justice System continues with the status offense laws and always work to improve them to ensure that the society is safe.

However, the status offenses have been debated for long, with critics arguing that they are not necessary. Critics have argued that status offenses have had some bias on some groups in the society and that it has often led to violation of children rights (Moore & Padavic, 2010). Critics argue that there are alternatives that are sounder than the status offense sentences or punishments. According to Salsich and Trone (2013) one of the alternatives is to refer the youths found guilty to private therapeutic agencies. In this case, their argument is that the offenses committed require psychological remedies outside the Juvenile Justice System. The therapeutic experts help the youth through counseling sessions. The National Standards is another alternative, which discourages detention of status offense offenders, and advocates for best practices for the juvenile population (Ibid). The best practices have to base on research and social service approaches, in engaging and supporting families that need assistance. However, the National Standards is an approach that borrows from the original intent of the Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders and Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. The National Standards calls a system response that has the best interests of the families and youth at the core of the intervention.

Community-based alternatives could also address the issue of status offenders as argued by other critics (Salsich & Trone, 2013). They argue that the use of the court system to intervene on the offenses is an ineffective approach because it does not address the underlying social problems that drive the minors to committing the offenses. For instance, the offenders would be undergoing some problems at the family level, and the intervention would be to bring the parents and their children into terms. In such cases, community-based approaches such as sensitizing the parents and youth could form platforms for experts to help.

The view according to this essay, that the status offenses should not be abolished agrees with Rose Tiffany’s arguments (Arthur & Waugh, 2008) that the status laws are justified. Status laws have helped the society eliminate weird behaviours in the youth and isolate them from the corruption of peer pressure. However, the view contrasts with the views of critics such as Reese A. William, who amongst other arguments argued that the status laws have led to incarceration of juveniles and at times mistreatments and abnormal increase in the number of girls taken to serve sentences for committing especially status laws on sexual behaviour (Salsich & Trone, 2013). Children in Need of Service reformists also differ with the view claiming that a system that provides access to a variety of resources for families and juveniles committing offenses in certain circumstances would be desirable (Ibid). Here, the use of the court system would only happen with the courts examination of any gaps for intervention, otherwise community-based services serve best.

References

Arthur, P. J., & Waugh, R. (2008). Status offenses and the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act: The exception that swallowed the rule. Seattle J. Soc. Just., 7, 555.

Lipsey, M. W., Howell, J. C., Kelly, M. R., Chapman, G., & Carver, D. (2010). Improving the effectiveness of juvenile justice programs. Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, Georgetown University, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Moore, L. D., & Padavic, I. (2010). Racial and ethnic disparities in girls’ sentencing in the juvenile justice system. Feminist Criminology, 5(3), 263-285.

Salsich, A., & Trone, J. (2013). From Courts to Communities: The Right Response to Truancy, Running Away, and Other Status Offenses. Status Offense Reform Center, Vera Institute of Justice.