Blog Post #8: Jurisdiction of Juvenile Courts

The types of cases that end up in juvenile courts are defined by state law. As such, the jurisdiction of juvenile courts varies from state to state. Such jurisdiction is usually based on two factors: the age of the offender and the act committed.

In juvenile cases, there is a youngest age of when a juvenile court can assume jurisdiction and an oldest age of when a juvenile is released. Wide discrepancies exist among states—from a youngest age of 6 years to an oldest age of 24 years. Most states, however, have a youngest age of 10 years and an oldest age of 17 years for juvenile court jurisdiction. Juveniles who are younger than the youngest age when they commit criminal acts are usually informally processed by law enforcement or placed in the state social welfare system. Offenders above the oldest age are prosecuted as adult criminals. The youngest and oldest ages apply to the time the act was committed, not when the juvenile was caught or tried in court. Despite these ages, some states provide that some juveniles can be kept in a juvenile institution or supervised until they reach an older age, such as 18, 21, or 24. This is particularly true in juvenile delinquency cases when state authorities believe there is a need for continued supervision. Coupled with the age of the offender, jurisdiction of juvenile courts is also determined by the act committed by the juvenile.

Juvenile acts that trigger court involvement consist of two types: juvenile delinquency and conduct in need of supervision (CINS). Each state determines what acts come under each category. Juvenile delinquency acts are those that are punishable under the state’s penal code. Examples include murder, robbery, burglary, assault, and any other act considered criminal in that state. In 2002, juvenile courts in the United States handled an estimated 1.6 million juvenile delinquency cases [1]. Most of these cases were referred to the juvenile courts by law enforcement agencies. In contrast, CINS are acts that would not be punishable if committed by adults. These are usually status offenses, meaning they are punished because of their status, which in these cases is their age. Status offenses include such categories as truancy, running away from home, tobacco use, inhalant use, curfew violation, and underage drinking [1]. Compared to juvenile delinquency cases, law enforcement agencies refer very few CINS cases to court. In 2002, only 55 percent of cases in juvenile courts were referred to them by law enforcement agencies. The rest arrived to the courts via social services agencies, victims, probation officers, schools, or parents. According to Snyder and Sickmund, “In many jurisdictions, agencies other than juvenile courts are responsible for handling status offense cases. In some communities, for example, family crisis units, county attorneys, and social services agencies have assumed this responsibility” [1].

One issue that has been raised with the jurisdiction of juvenile courts by both ends of the political spectrum has been the retention of offenders in juvenile correctional facilities past the age of 18. As mentioned earlier, some states provide juvenile courts the right to retain jurisdiction of offenders after reaching early adulthood. Those who support a more punitive approach in juvenile justice consider retaining jurisdiction as harmful to society, while others consider it destructive to the juveniles themselves. Those who support a more punitive model of juvenile justice believe that once they reach adulthood offenders should be transferred to adult prisons instead of retained in juvenile facilities. Those who believe that retained jurisdiction is destructive to juveniles argue that in some cases, some juveniles can spend more time in a juvenile correctional facility than an adult spends locked away in an adult prison for a similar offense. Both assessments are valid, so one alternative that could be considered is the creation of a correctional system specifically designed for young adults. For example, a correctional system in which offenders are between the ages of 18 and 25 and separate from both the juvenile and adult systems would fulfill the desires of both of these ideological fractions. From the punitive model’s perspective, the offender would still be punished while removed from younger, more impressionable juveniles. From the other model’s perspective, with a provision set limiting the amount of time spent in this secondary correctional system, offenders would not spend an unequal amount of time under state supervision.

Source:

[1] Snyder, M., & Sickmund, M. (2008). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 national report. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.