In the last half century, the juvenile justice system has changed dramatically. Through changes to legislation, various state and federal court decisions, and attitudinal changes, juvenile offenders are increasingly being afforded rights that were once reserved for adult offenders. Youth offenders are now given procedural due process rights, the right to have their voices heard, and, in some states, the right to a trial by jury. Despite this overall shift in the approach to juvenile justice, there are still some parts of the system that have failed to make the adjustment. Status offenders are a primary example of such a group. Status offenses are a classification of transgressions committed by juveniles “that would not be a crime if committed by an adult.” Typical examples of status offenses include: truancy, running away, curfew violations, and ungovernability. The nature of these offenses—that they are not considered criminal—makes it so that status offenders are afforded neither procedural due process rights nor the opportunity to voice their interests. Rather, the nature of status offenses allows courts to exercise paternalism and use their discretion in determining the disposition of the child, including whether the child committed an offense and how the child should be treated.
This Note examines the juvenile justice system’s paternalistic attitude towards status offenders and observes that while the juvenile justice system as a whole has moved towards greater autonomy and voice for youth offenders, the system’s treatment of status offenders has failed to keep up. Part I presents a broad overview of the history of the juvenile justice system, as well as a more detailed description of status offenders. Part II discusses various changes made to the juvenile justice system over the last fifty years and the overall shift towards greater autonomy for youth offenders. It describes changes made through federal legislation, federal and state court decisions, and general attitudinal changes. Part III addresses the ways status offenders have been left behind in the juvenile justice system’s movement and how they are continually deprived of the same rights and autonomy as other youth offenders. It traces the history of status offenders within the juvenile justice system and presents a case study of female status offenders to demonstrate the ways in which status offenders are subject to paternalism at the discretion of juvenile court judges. Finally, Part IV offers suggestions to afford status offenders the same autonomy and rights as other youth within the juvenile justice system. The Note concludes that status offenders must either be provided greater rights and protections within the current structure or they must be removed as a whole from the jurisdiction of the juvenile justice system.