NCJ Number
67141
Date Published
1979
Length
30 pages
Annotation
THE PROS AND CONS OF DIVERTING JUVENILE STATUS OFFENDERS FROM COURT, THE HISTORY OF STATUS OFFENSE LAWS, VARIOUS U.S. AND EUROPEAN STATUTES, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEW YORK STATE ARE DISCUSSED.
Abstract
THIS REPORT IS INTENDED FOR NEW YORK STATE USE, WHERE JUVENILE STATUS OFFENDERS ARE KNOWN AS PINS (PERSONS IN NEED OF SUPERVISION). SINCE THE PUBLIC DOES NOT NEED TO BE PROTECTED FROM PINS, THERE IS GREAT DISAGREEMENT ABOUT THE PROPER ROLE OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM IN AIDING THEM; ADJUDICATING PINS OFTEN DOES NOT SERVE THEIR INTERESTS. THE PINS DEBATE NEEDS TO ADDRESS SUCH QUESTIONS AS TO WHAT EXTENT SOCIETY SHOULD TOLERATE JUVENILE STATUS OFFENSES, WHAT PERSONS OR AGENCIES OUTSIDE THE FAMILY SHOULD INTERVENE, AND WITH WHAT SORT OF AUTHORITY. PRESENTLY, POLICE AND THE COURTS MAY INTERVENE WHEN A CHILD BECOMES A STATUS OFFENDER. HOWEVER, THESE JUVENILES MAY BE MORE EFFECTIVELY HELPED THROUGH COMMUNITY SERVICES, AND THE GROWTH OF SUCH SERVICES IS INHIBITED BY POLICE INTERVENTION. THOSE OBJECTING TO ADJUDICATING PINS BELIEVE THAT THE COURTS DO NOT REHABILITATE THEM, THAT COURT RESOURCES WOULD BE BETTER SPENT ON JUVENILE CRIMINALS, AND THAT IT IS UNFAIR TO TREAT STATUS OFFENDERS AS CRIMINALS. HOWEVER, LIMITED COURT INVOLVEMENT WITH PINS IS PROBABLY NECESSARY WHEN A JUVENILE IS IN DANGEROUS CIRCUMSTANCES, NEEDS FOSTER PLACEMENT, OR RUNS AWAY. SUITABLE PINS LEGISLATION, THEREFORE, SHOULD PERMIT ACCEPTING COURT PETITIONS REGARDING PINS BUT ONLY OTHER WAY TO ENSURE SERVICES FOR THE YOUTH. STATUTES DEALING WITH JUVENILE STATUS OFFENDERS ARE VAGUE AND TOO BROAD IN MOST STATES. HOWEVER, NEW LEGISLATION AND ITS RESULTS IN PENNSYLVANIA AND FLORIDA ARE DISCUSSED. THE TREATMENT OF STATUS OFFENDERS IN EUROPE AND THE SOVIET UNION IS ALSO DESCRIBED. FOOTNOTES, A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF 29 CITATIONS, AND TABULAR INFORMATION ARE INCLUDED.