Rethinking Juvenile Status Offense Law Analysis
Summary of Journal
The article Rethinking Juvenile Status offense laws: consider for congressional review of the juvenile justice and delinquency prevention Act was written by Claire Shubik and Jessica Kendall. The article is mainly about congress reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act. The article gives an overview of the recent state-offense legislation and case law. The article also address issues that was raised by congress during the reauthorizing of the Juvenile Justice and delinquency prevention act.
For many years, the Juvenile delinquent system was established to separate children form adults in the criminal justice system. This process begins in the early 1960’s, however instead of the common term
Juvenile delinquent the term was known as “status offender” which means someone charged with an offense that would not be a crime if committed by an adult. When children will commit crimes such as underage drinking, runaways and truants they will be separate from their families. California was the first state to create a special category for status offense (Shubik&Kendall).
The concerns that was establish by advocates was court based status-offense system failed to act in the children’s best interest, when it came to punishment of the juvenile. “ Throughout the years there was several hearing and research by the U.S senate Judiciary committee followed commission’s report(Shubik&Kendall).” One of the commission recommendation was to removed status offense form secure custody stating that the responsibility should not be on penal institution, but on the community based organization should take responsibility for youth delinquent. Recommendation
The authors of this article recommended that congress should aid the many states that are struggling to identify which agency of the criminal justice will best suited to respond to youth in the status offense. They implied that congress should be willing to use and implant the increase use of social service agencies as the first responders to status-offense. The guidelines of pre-court diversion service requirement should be set to a minimum. This minimum requirement will establish an understanding between courts and service provider roles with status-offense cases. To avoid any confusion between both party congress should do away with valid court order exception. The authors believe that because valid order exception still stand court, most states struggle to comply with the Juvenile justice and delinquency prevention act “dual’s principles of deinstitutionalization and institutionalization (Shubik&Kendall)”. If the court order exception are drop this will allow congress to establish inconsistency and provide better outcome to families of the status-offense.
The final recommendation was reauthorization,” if reauthorization was created the author believe congress will be able to address any issue related to jurisdiction age and cross-section between school attendance laws and statutory requirements that’s related to truancy (Shubik&Kendall).” The authors strongly believed that congress should be able to provide a definition of statues offense that address both school attendance requirements and junctional age from the guideline of the juvenile justice delinquent prevention act.
Key Issues of the Article
In the article, there was many key issues that were presented. One issue that stood out in the article was the age limit eligibility requirements for the juvenile status offense jurisdiction and school attendance.” The issue that circle around school attendance was the cost and disruptive to youth and their families that was increase the numbers of court cases that involved status offenders who are kicked at of home due to noncriminal behavior (Shubik&Kendall).” The setting of the age limit is set by the states. Most of the states require an age limit of 18 when it comes to juvenile status-offense jurisdiction. However, there are New York and Connecticut states that make cut the age limit to 16. In 2000, New York passed a legislation that maximized the age of eligibility for youth in need of more managing from parents to 18 years old. The law had many benefits that help the parents and lobbyist control the youth with law enforcement and courts. Connecticut’s legislation was like New York’s. Both legislation didn’t have any fiscal to increase status offenses. And both legislation pose a prime solution to help build opportunities for parents that are put in desperate situation to control their teens behavior patterns.
Analyze of the article The focus of this article is to decrease the percentage of status youth in the court system. To decrease the percentage of youth, states came up with solution that will help benefit status offenses and their families. The article viewed many areas that needed improvement that will control the behavioral patterns of youth. The article also, wanted to prevent teens from being torn away from families due to noncriminal behavioral, to prevent such in act from happening the states will consider viewing new programs to be establish for families. The overall goal of this article is outline certain steps to increase the common goal of the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act.
References
Shubik C., & Kendall J. (2007) Rethinking juvenile status offense law: considerations for congressional review of the juvenile justice and delinquency prevention act. Family Court Review,45(3), 384-398
The article Rethinking Juvenile Status offense laws: consider for congressional review of the juvenile justice and delinquency prevention Act was written by Claire Shubik and Jessica Kendall. The article is mainly about congress reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act. The article gives an overview of the recent state-offense legislation and case law. The article also address issues that was raised by congress during the reauthorizing of the Juvenile Justice and delinquency prevention act.
For many years, the Juvenile delinquent system was established to separate children form adults in the criminal justice system. This process begins in the early 1960’s, however instead of the common term
Juvenile delinquent the term was known as “status offender” which means someone charged with an offense that would not be a crime if committed by an adult. When children will commit crimes such as underage drinking, runaways and truants they will be separate from their families. California was the first state to create a special category for status offense (Shubik&Kendall).
The concerns that was establish by advocates was court based status-offense system failed to act in the children’s best interest, when it came to punishment of the juvenile. “ Throughout the years there was several hearing and research by the U.S senate Judiciary committee followed commission’s report(Shubik&Kendall).” One of the commission recommendation was to removed status offense form secure custody stating that the responsibility should not be on penal institution, but on the community based organization should take responsibility for youth delinquent. Recommendation
The authors of this article recommended that congress should aid the many states that are struggling to identify which agency of the criminal justice will best suited to respond to youth in the status offense. They implied that congress should be willing to use and implant the increase use of social service agencies as the first responders to status-offense. The guidelines of pre-court diversion service requirement should be set to a minimum. This minimum requirement will establish an understanding between courts and service provider roles with status-offense cases. To avoid any confusion between both party congress should do away with valid court order exception. The authors believe that because valid order exception still stand court, most states struggle to comply with the Juvenile justice and delinquency prevention act “dual’s principles of deinstitutionalization and institutionalization (Shubik&Kendall)”. If the court order exception are drop this will allow congress to establish inconsistency and provide better outcome to families of the status-offense.
The final recommendation was reauthorization,” if reauthorization was created the author believe congress will be able to address any issue related to jurisdiction age and cross-section between school attendance laws and statutory requirements that’s related to truancy (Shubik&Kendall).” The authors strongly believed that congress should be able to provide a definition of statues offense that address both school attendance requirements and junctional age from the guideline of the juvenile justice delinquent prevention act.
Key Issues of the Article
In the article, there was many key issues that were presented. One issue that stood out in the article was the age limit eligibility requirements for the juvenile status offense jurisdiction and school attendance.” The issue that circle around school attendance was the cost and disruptive to youth and their families that was increase the numbers of court cases that involved status offenders who are kicked at of home due to noncriminal behavior (Shubik&Kendall).” The setting of the age limit is set by the states. Most of the states require an age limit of 18 when it comes to juvenile status-offense jurisdiction. However, there are New York and Connecticut states that make cut the age limit to 16. In 2000, New York passed a legislation that maximized the age of eligibility for youth in need of more managing from parents to 18 years old. The law had many benefits that help the parents and lobbyist control the youth with law enforcement and courts. Connecticut’s legislation was like New York’s. Both legislation didn’t have any fiscal to increase status offenses. And both legislation pose a prime solution to help build opportunities for parents that are put in desperate situation to control their teens behavior patterns.
Analyze of the article The focus of this article is to decrease the percentage of status youth in the court system. To decrease the percentage of youth, states came up with solution that will help benefit status offenses and their families. The article viewed many areas that needed improvement that will control the behavioral patterns of youth. The article also, wanted to prevent teens from being torn away from families due to noncriminal behavioral, to prevent such in act from happening the states will consider viewing new programs to be establish for families. The overall goal of this article is outline certain steps to increase the common goal of the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act.
References
Shubik C., & Kendall J. (2007) Rethinking juvenile status offense law: considerations for congressional review of the juvenile justice and delinquency prevention act. Family Court Review,45(3), 384-398