Status Offenses

History of Status Offenses

During the colonial era, the family served as the model for morality and social order. In this period, the family—particularly the father—had ultimate legal autonomy to maintain discipline of children. Domestic matters such as childrearing remained in the private domain, and families viewed government attempts to intervene with suspicion. This authority met its first systematic challenge in the early 19th century, however, with the identification of poverty as a particularly pressing social ill. A centralized system of public [Page 899]and private institutions evolved to address poverty, and reformers worried about its nearly inevitable result—crime and vice.

As poverty, immigration, urbanization, and delinquency became inextricably linked in reformers' consciousness, the children of the “dangerous classes” became the targets for institutional reform. Following the writings of Thomas Malthus, reformers worked to alleviate poverty and delinquency by inculcating the children of immigrant families with the virtues of hard work, self-control, and individualism. The first House of Refuge was instituted in New York City in 1825, soon followed by Boston in 1826 and Philadelphia in 1828. The education provided by these institutions, and at reformatories opened in the latter half of the 19th century, emphasized the acquisition of skills for agricultural and industrial work for boys and preparation for domestic servant positions for girls. In addition to instilling middle-class values and preparing youth for a working-class existence, this work was a chief source of revenue.

The first juvenile court, established in 1899, created a dual system of justice for juveniles and adults. While the primary response for adult offending was punishment, the juvenile court saw its role as intervention and rehabilitation. Viewing youthful offenders as innately pure and especially amenable to change, reformers worked to intervene before they encountered the “slippery slope” of criminality. The legal concept of parens patriae allowed the juvenile court far-reaching authority to intervene in the “best interests” of the child and his or her community. Almost any behavior, particularly those associated with poor ethnic immigrants (e.g., loitering and general idleness, begging, frequenting pool rooms), could suggest the need for intervention. Juvenile judges viewed their power to remove children from the home and commit them to institutions for moral education as both a means to support families that were unable to control their children and a way to address the failure of some parents to properly raise their children. Because these facilities were rehabilitative, not punitive, in nature, reformers failed to view the similar treatment for status offenders and delinquent law violators as problematic.

This practice continued, unchallenged until the 1960s, when youth workers began to advocate for the separation of status and delinquent juvenile offenders. Charging that status offender laws were essentially “omnibus” regulations whose vagueness allowed the court too much discretion, these advocates argued that placing status offenders in detention and reform facilities was not only unfair but ineffective. Moreover, they expressed concern about the stigma resulting from involvement in the juvenile justice system and the potential for harmful peer associations with delinquent offenders. As a result of their efforts, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) of 1974 made it illegal to house status offenders in secure detention. For the next 5 years, approximately 65,000 young people were held in custody for status offenses. Then, the proportion of status offenders in secure facilities declined dramatically, but the practice has not been completely eliminated.

...