Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Due process
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The case involved Jerry Gault, who at 14 was given a seven-year sentence for a lewd phone call. The judge entered an order that Gerald was delinquent, mandating his incarceration in a residential facility until he turned 21. Arizona law prohibited appeal of juvenile cases.
If Gerald been an adult when he committed the offense alleged, the maximum punishment would have been a fine of $5 to $50, or imprisonment a two-month maximum jail term. Gault being a juvenile was not afforded the same rights as if he was an adult. Gault had not received the procedural protections afforded to adults charged with criminal behavior, limiting the possibility of the imposition of any sentence. Gault’s case was a landmark decision issued by the United States Supreme Court that ultimately established that under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a juvenile involved in a delinquency hearing must be afforded similar due process rights as is afforded to an adult. The Supreme Court handed down an wide-ranging opinion affirming
…show more content…
In their jurisdictional statement and brief in the Court, appellants do not urge upon all of the points passed upon by the Supreme Court of Arizona. They urge that we hold the Juvenile Code of Arizona invalid on its face or as applied in this case because,
For this assignment, we learned that Maurice Clarett filed a case against the NFL where he argued that the NFL’s three-year rule acted as an unreasonable restraint in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Act. On the other hand, the NFL argued that its three-year rule was covered from the antitrust laws by the nonstatutory labor exemption. First, the case was reviewed by the district court which concluded that the NFL's eligibility rules violated antitrust laws by requiring the player to wait at least three years before entering the NFL draft and that the eligibility criteria was not immune from those antitrust laws. The court favored Clarett making him eligible for the 2004 NFL Draft.
Summary of the Case On August 1987, Donald Butler opened a store in Winnipeg, Manitoba, called the “Avenue Boutique”. In this store, Butler sold and rented pornographic publications that were considered “hard core” and sexual paraphernalia. A couple weeks later, the City of Winnipeg Police searched and seized Butler’s sexually explicit materials lawfully. From this, Butler was charged with 173 counts under s. 163 of the Criminal Code. These charges included s. 163(1)(a) which criminalizes the distribution and the possession for distribution of obscene materials, as wells s. 163(2)(a) for selling and exposing obscene material to the public.
A 12 year old stole money from a lady’s wallet that was stored in a locker at the time it was taken. Samuel Winship, the defendant was charged with an act of delinquency. If Samuel was charged as an adult the crime would have be larceny. A New York Family court judge convicted Samuel on a preponderance of evidence, which at the time was all that was necessary according to New York State Statute. At the time of the trial a juvenile in the state of New York was at least seven years old, but younger than 16. Samuel was 12, which by law made him a juvenile that could be charged with an act of delinquency.
The use of juvenile records in adult criminal cases has been an ongoing, contested debate for many years. The effects of using one’s juvenile record in criminal court could be very damning. This week’s case summary is in regard to this very issue. In People v. Smith (1991), the defendant in this case, Ricky Smith stated that he was wrongly sentenced to the maximum length of 180 months under a statute which utilized his juvenile record to deem that he was a habitual offender. A closer examination follows.
The appeal was filed based on the fact that Smith’s presentence investigation report(PSIR) revealed that he had an extensive juvenile record which included a history of at least twelve offenses. Smith argued that he was entitled to resentencing under MCR 5.913, rewritten as MCR 5.925(E). The information in the PSIR was supposed to be automatically expunged pursuant to former MCR 5.913(People v. Smith, 2016). The Court of Appeals considered two panels of discussion before deciding in favor of the
When I first received this topic and did preliminary research, it seemed more of a race issue than a juvenile issue, since it happened during the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. With further research, I found that it influenced how public colleges and the juvenile justice system handle disciplinary matters. This case was a part of many cases that granted juveniles the right of due process. According to our textbook, due process is a basic constitutional law (found in the 14th amendment) focused on the belief that the individual has primacy and that governmental power should be limited to protect the individual. Due process is supposed to safeguard the individual from unfair state procedures in legal or administrative trails. Because of the case in question, due process rights have been extended to juvenile trials. Another case during this time where due process was in question was the Goldberg v. The Regents of California.
“Criminal Law and Procedure -Eighth Amendment- Juvenile Life Without Parole Sentences: Graham v. Florida” (2009) Harvard Law Review. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Apr. 2011.
With increased media coverage of violent juvenile behavior, legislators began to pass laws to toughen up on juvenile crime. Many laws made it easier to waive juveniles into adult courts, or even exclude juveniles who had committed serious crimes from juvenile court jurisdiction. Furthermore, the sentences to be handed out for offenders were lengthened and made much more severe. As a result, the juvenile courts began to resemble the adult courts. Yet, this movement’s influence began to fade, and by the turn of the century, another shift had occurred. In the current juvenile courts, a balanced approach is emphasized. While the court deals with chronic and dangerous offenders with a heavy hand, needy youth who need help to get back on track are still assisted under the parens patriae philosophy. Restorative justice has come to be the preferred method of today’s juvenile courts. In an overall sense, the modern juvenile court has taken on a paternalistic view similar to parens patriae towards youths who are in need of guidance, while punitively punishing offenders who do not respond to the helping hand extended to
Gerald (Jerry) Gault, was arrest for an obscene telephone call to his neighbor, Mrs. Cook. Gault parents were not notified of his whereabouts, nor did the arresting officer leave a notice. The arresting officer file a petition with the court on the exact day of his initial court hearing. There was no petition given to his parents and it did not appear until two months later.(Facts and Case Summary-In re Gault, (n.d.). There was a challenge for the Appellant court in regards to the constitutionality of the Arizona Juvenile Code and procedure used in Gerald case, in which he was denied of a proper procedure of his due process. Therefore, a juvenile is required a due process in a court of law. In doing so there must be a written notice that states
The historical development of the juvenile justice system in the United States is one that is focused on forming and separating trying juveniles from adult counterparts. One of the most important aspects is focusing on ensuring that there is a level of fairness and equality with respect to the cognitive abilities and processes of juvenile as it relates to committing crime. Some of the most important case legislation that would strengthen the argument in regard to the development of the juvenile justice system is related to the reform of the justice system during the turn of the 19th century. Many juveniles were unfortunately caught in the crosshairs of being tried as adults and ultimately receiving punishments not in line with their ability
The book “No Matter How Loud I Shout” written by Edward Humes, looks at numerous major conflicts within the juvenile court system. There is a need for the juvenile system to rehabilitate the children away from their lives of crime, but it also needs to protect the public from the most violent and dangerous of its juveniles, causing one primary conflict. Further conflict arises with how the court is able to administer proper treatment or punishment and the rights of the child too due process. The final key issue is between those that call for a complete overhaul of the system, and the others who think it should just be taken apart. On both sides there is strong reasoning that supports each of their views, causing a lot of debate about the juvenile court system.
Miller, quoting rule 1401 (a)(8)of the Juvenile Court Rules of the California Rules of Court.
According to Donna M. Bishop( 2003) of the University of Chicago criminal justice system “Transfer of juvenile defendants to criminal courts for adult prosecution has traditionally been justified on the grounds that the juvenile court is ill equipped to handle two classes of offenders. In cases of seriously violent crimes, the public has historically demanded heavy penalties that exceed the authority of the juvenile court (Tanenhaus, forthcoming). While commission of a repugnant act neither transforms a young o...
The Court finds that the pleadings of [Petitioner/Respondent] are in due form and contain all the allegations, information, and prerequisites required by law. The Court, after receiving evidence, finds that it has jurisdiction of this case and of all the parties and that at least sixty days have elapsed since the date the suit was filed. The Court finds that, at the time this suit was filed, *[[Petitioner/Respondent] had been a domiciliary of Texas for the preceding six-month period and a resident of the county in which this suit was filed for the preceding ninety-day period.]**[Petitioner was domiciled in another state or nation and Respondent had been a domiciliary of Texas for the preceding six-month period and was a resident of this county in which the suit was filed.]* All persons entitled to citation were properly cited.
" It shall be conclusively presumed that no child under the age of ten years can be guilty of any offence."