Overview

Status offenses are a class of transgressions considered offenses for minors but not considered crimes for adults. In the United States, state laws define what constitutes status offenses and who can be deemed status offenders. Given the focus placed on state law, this area is riddled with considerable variation. Variation exists both in terms of the label that would be attached to those who commit status offenses as well as the nature of the status offenses themselves. Variation also takes the form of the legal responses to behaviors deemed status offenses and efforts to treat them differently from delinquent or criminal acts. Despite that variation, this area of law reveals important themes. These themes and variations highlight the legal system’s efforts to deal with issues particular to an adolescent’s social status and the challenge of determining the extent to which adolescents should be treated unlike adults.

Laws Regulating Status Offenders

An examination of state laws regulating status offenders reveals that they tend to be difficult to find. The reason for that difficulty is that status offenders often are not even deemed status offenders but most likely a “person in need of supervision” (“PINS”) or a “child in need of supervision” (“CHINS”). Despite some states’ tendency to designate status offenders as PINS and CHINS, a look at state laws reveals that other terms can be used in different states as well as within them. These other terms range widely, such as child in need of protection, child in need of services, family in need of services, family with service needs, unruly child, incorrigible child, ungovernable child, minor requiring authoritative intervention, child in need of aid, child in need of care, child beyond the control of parents, youth in need of intervention, wayward child, undisciplined juvenile, dependent child, at-risk youth, and juvenile-family crisis. In addition to variation in the behaviors that may constitute status offenses, considerable variation exists in who can be labeled status offenders. The age of majority (18) tends to be the cutoff age for the commission of status offenses, although some statutes limit some status offenses according to age (such as 15 or 16). These variations in names and ages are important to highlight in that they reveal a fundamental point about status offenders. Status offenders become status offenders not only because of what they do but also because of their relationship to their families. Definitions highlight how the legal system treats status offending largely as a family issue, which has important repercussion in how the legal system treats status offenders.

Many types of behaviors can be considered status offenses. As there are many labels for status offenders, there are many types of behaviors that states do classify as status offenses. Despite wide variation, the majority of states recognize at least four major types of status offenses. The first is ungovernability (or sometimes called incorrigibility, unruliness, or misbehavior). That label can describe many behaviors, ranging from disobeying family rules to engaging in sexual activity (Kandel and Griffiths 2003). The second category includes runaways and throwaways. Although laws do not distinguish between running away and being thrown out, both are very much related in that they result in the same behavior. Running away means leaving without permission and staying out overnight and often involves a minimum age; typically only 14- or 15-year-olds and above can be deemed runaways (Loken 1995). The third group of status offenses involves truancy. Unlike other status offenses, states sometimes consider truancy a delinquent act, not just a status offense, given the close links between truancy and delinquent and criminal behavior (Spaethe 2000). Curfew violations tend to be the last major group of status offenses recognized across states. Curfew laws are ordinances that dictate hours after which juveniles may not loiter on the streets. These are increasingly popular (and controversial) ways to control juvenile crime as they have replaced what used to be decisions made by families (Note 2005). Lastly, states also have defined other behaviors as status offenses, and these range from underage alcohol or nicotine consumption to wearing baggy pants, although these offenses most likely could have been subsumed by existing categories (for a review, see Matthews 2000).

Responding to Status Offenders

The variation found in labels used for offenders and behaviors of what would constitute status offenses continues in how courts respond to status offenders. One of the most remarkable developments in the legal history of status offenses has been efforts to remove them from the juvenile justice system. Many advocacy groups and legal organizations had long argued for the removal of status offenders from the jurisdiction of the courts in favor of entirely service-based programs and in hopes of decriminalizing the offenses (Feld 1999). The major law that was intended to assist in this regard, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA), was enacted in 1974. As with other federal laws, this one provided financial incentives (grants) to states if they developed laws and programs consistent with federal mandates. Given the federal government’s largess and the needs of states, states tend to comply, which they did in this case. Although the JJDPA has been thought of as the statute that decriminalized status offenses and separated them from delinquent acts (and thus really created status offenses by making offenses really only applicable to juveniles), the legislation actually did not do that. Rather, the legislation mandated the deinstitutionalization of status offenders or removal of status offenders from juvenile correctional facilities. The distinction is of significance, especially in terms of the services and rights adolescents retain, which would be part of determining the success of the legislation.

On its face, the JJDPA achieved important successes. Most notably, it reduced the number of status offenders (Feld 1997). Regrettably, it is difficult to determine the extent to which the act actually succeeded in better providing for status offenders. It is likely that the changes meant that many adolescents are never served by the courts at all (rather than that there are actually fewer status offenders) (see, e.g., Feld 1997). If the youth are served, it could be when their actions turn into criminal or delinquent behaviors. It also could be that the behaviors have now shifted to being charged as delinquent or criminal acts rather as noncriminal status offenses. This would not be surprising given how some status offenses may be similar to or related to delinquent ones (see, e.g., Kedia 2007). The controversies are likely to continue given that this area is void of definitive research that could address controversies.

Assuming that the number of status offenders has been reduced, and that the reduction reflects a real change, it may not follow that those who are identified as status offenders are treated appropriately. One of the peculiarities of status offenses is that they do not require courts to respect as many of the offenders’ constitutional rights that would need to be respected had they been deemed delinquents. Minors alleged to be delinquents have been granted many of the constitutional rights afforded by adults, while those alleged to be status offenders are subjected to much more discretionary decision-making by the courts on the grounds that the flexibility and discretion best serve adolescents’ needs. The informality highlights the premise that, rather than determining innocence or guilt, interventions for status offenses are to guide and reform troubled children and their families. Given the discretion, it is not surprising to find that the system has been criticized for its improper use of discretion (Kedia 2007), which helps to confirm the challenges that society faces in identifying and addressing the needs of troubled and troubling adolescents.

Conclusion

Society, through its legal system, has long sought to deal with troubling and troubled youth. One of the most important responses to emerge during the last century is the recognition of the need to treat them differently from adults, which has led to the development of status offenses. These offenses exist simply because those committing them are minors. Although status offense may have been developed with good intentions, their use remains complicated, challenging, and often problematic.

Cross-References