Judicial Paternalism and the Female Status Offender

TLDR

The juvenile court’s jurisdiction over status offenders has historically reflected extralegal paternalism, reinforcing traditional family norms that demand greater obedience and chastity from girls than boys. The study shows that status‑offense enforcement creates a de facto double standard, with girls—especially those whose behavior challenges parental authority—charged more often and punished more harshly than boys, and treated more severely than girls charged with crimes.

Abstract

Criticism of the juvenile court's jurisdiction over the status offender consistently neglects one important aspect of the issue. As a product of the court's history of extralegal paternalism, status offenses have involved the system in the maintenance of traditional family norms, which require greater obedience and chastity from females than from males. The enforcement of status offenses has created a de facto double standard of juvenile justice in America. Like "good parents," police and court personnel tend to select for punishment girls whose behavior threatens parental authority and boys whose behavior is beyond that which can be excused as "boys will be boys." This pattern explains both the overrepresentation of girls charged with status offenses in court popula tions and the relatively harsh official response to this behavior. Evidence is presented to show that, at every level in the system, girls charged with status offenses are treated more harshly than girls charged with crimes. Further, the noncriminal activity of girls is frequently seen as requiring more drastic intervention than the criminal behavior of boys.