Each year in the United States, children as young as 13 years old are sentenced to spend the rest of their lives in prison without any chance of getting released. There has been a worldwide agreement declaring that children cannot be held to the same standards of responsibility as adults and it is recognized that children are entitled to special protection and treatment. There are three types of juvenile waivers that have been allowing juveniles to be treated as adults in adult court. The Miller v. Alabama case is a step toward more just treatment of juvenile offenders following several decades’ worth of harsh treatment of youthful offenders. States have assumed that the juvenile justice system was the main way to shield the public by having …show more content…
Between 1985 and 1995, the nation witnessed a nearly 80% rise in arrests of juveniles 17 years old or younger for violent crimes, including murder, forcible rape, and aggravated assault (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1970-2003). The media said that there was a new generation of young “super predators” who were considered to be more violent, ruthless, and against being rehabilitated. New judicial transfer statutes made it easier to send the cases of any juveniles charged with felonies off to adult criminal courts. All but six states enacted such statutes between 1992 and 1997 (Snyder, Sickmund, & Poe-Yamagata, 2000). Today, all states have created ways to deal with juveniles in adult court. The judicial waiver is found in 46 states and requires juvenile courts to waive jurisdiction over certain criminal cases involving juveniles so they can be charged as adults. In 15 states, laws give prosecutors the choice of whether or not juveniles charged with certain felonies are going to be tried as a juvenile or an adult. There are 29 states that exclude serious felonies from being tried in juvenile court, so they are sent straight to adult …show more content…
Alabama has proven challenging (Darden, 2014). Miller was 14 years old when he committed his crime. He was found guilty of capital murder and received a life without parole sentence. Miller did not get to appeal anything on the state level, so his counsel filed a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, which let the case get reviewed in November 2011. On June 25, 2012, the Supreme Court officially ruled that mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles convicted of homicide are unconstitutional (Swift, 2013). This means that it doesn’t ban judges from sentencing young offenders under the age of 18 to life without parole if mitigating factors are looked at. The Supreme Court has reasoned that “when compared to an adult murderer, a juvenile [nonhomicide] offender…has twice diminished moral culpability,” thus rendering life without parole cruel and unconstitutional (Lerner, 2012). The court’s incremental progress began with Roper v. Simmons, which prohibited mandatory life sentences for all non-homicide youth offense, and was followed by Graham v. Florida, which eliminated the death penalty for juvenile offenders (Swift, 2013). Miller, along with Roper, has banned mandatory life without parole juveniles charged of all offenses including murder. The Miller decision had an instant effect on 29
In my opinion, I actually agree with the court decision because yes although he did committed a crime, to be sentenced for life at young age is pretty harsh. I do agree that he should pay for his consequences but not to that extreme. They should honestly come up with a plan that suits his crime. Plus he has the right of the 8th Amendment, to not condone a cruel punishment if it does not suit the crime in which he committed.
Within the last five years, violent offenses by children have increased 68 percent, crimes such as: murder, rape, assault, and robbery. Honestly, with these figures, it is not surprising at all that the Juveniles Courts focus less on the children in danger, and focus more on dangerous children. This in fact is most likely the underlying reasoning behind juveniles being tried as adults by imposing harsher and stiffer sentences. However, these policies fail to recognize the developmental differences between young people and
There have been many Supreme Court cases that dealed with many concepts of the law, like obscenity for example. As a matter of fact, obscenity is a concept that Miller v. California deals with. To be more specific, this case deals with what is considered obscene, and if the specific obscenity mentioned in this case is protected by the first amendment, the freedom of speech. I will now explain this case in more depth.
Supreme Court from Roper v. Simmons (2005) while he appealed to the Supreme Court. In the prior case, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that sentencing a person to the death penalty for a crime committed before age 18 was a violation of the Eighth Amendment for the juveniles lacked maturity and other capabilities while they committed the crime and in the crime itself. And he argued that life without parole was really the same as the death sentence, which Roper prohibited for juveniles. So he argued the Florida Supreme Court violated the Eighth Amendment hand down the decision. However, the Florida Court believed that a life without parole sentence is not the same as the death penalty, and the crime Graham committed itself could not be overlooked. Also, the State Court believed that the Supreme Court should respect the rights and decision the State Court made toward Graham to set its own sentencing laws and judges’ decisions to determine the appropriate sentence. And finally, Justice Kennedy delivered the final decision of the Supreme Court after reviewing the current sentencing practices, which rarely involved sentencing juveniles without parole, that the decision the Florida Supreme Court made of not granting parole for a life sentence for Graham violated the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause. Also, it ruled that sentencing any juvenile to life in prison without parole is a non-homicide crime. Graham’s appeal was
In some cases, the crime committed by a juvenile is so egregious, that it belongs in adult court. The waivers presented in this discussion are juvenile friendly, containing many safeguards for juveniles. Take for example, the juvenile waiver, this waiver contains a list of pertinent questions about the juvenile’s history, which is addressed, before a waiver is considered. Another example, prosecutorial discretion waiver, this waiver makes decisions around one important factor, the age of the juvenile. And then we have statutory exclusion waivers, which states that juveniles in prison or not, are considered a protected population (OJJDP, 1997). Now, with that said, waivers should be used under special circumstances. Circumstances that involve heinous crimes, and felonies committed by
The process of transferring juveniles to adult courts has shown no effects on decreasing recidivism or a deterrent outcome. Waiver as it is known has three means by which a juvenile can be transferred to an adult court. Judicial waiver offenses, statutory exclusions, and concurrent jurisdiction are the three methods in which a waiver can occur. This research will describe each one of these methods with detail. It will also provide statistical facts showing why waiver can be a very debatable topic within the juvenile criminal justice system. In its totality it will discuss the arguments for and against waiver.
After being caught, Smith was offered the sentence of life with parole in exchange for testifying against and betraying Evan Miller, who was tried as an adult and was sentenced to mandatory life without parole. In the parallel case Jackson v. Hobbs, 14 year old Kentrell Jackson was sentenced to life without parole after an incident in which he was in the presence of a felony murder crime during a robbery. Jackson did not commit the murder, in fact he was outside the scene while it took place, yet he was still charged as an adult of felony murder. In both cases two young men with futures ahead of them had their chances of a life crushed because of a sentence meant for the worst criminals in the world. A mandatory sentence of life without the possibility of parole for juveniles is a direct violation of the eighth amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
Supreme Court ruling Graham v. Florida (2010) banned the use of life without parole for juveniles who committed non-homicide crimes, and Roper v. Simmons (2005) abolished the use of the death penalty for juvenile offenders. They both argued that these sentences violated the 8th Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. While these landmark cases made great strides for the rights of minors passing through the criminal justice system, they are just the first steps in creating a juvenile justice system that takes into consideration the vast differences between adolescents and adults. Using sociological (Butler, 2010) and legal (Harvard Law Review, 2010) documents, this essay will explicate why the next such step to be taken is entirely eliminating the use of the life without parole sentence for juveniles, regardless of the nature of the crime being charged.
In the last 42 years little to no changes have been made to correct the standards that govern punitive measures towards juvenile delinquency. Today juvenile law is governed by state and many states have enacted a juvenile code. However, in numerous cases, juveniles are transferred to adult court when juvenile courts waive or relinquish jurisdiction. Adolescents should not be tried in the adult court system or sentenced to adult penitentiary's on account of: teen brains are not mature which causes a lack of understanding towards the system, incarceration in an adult facility increases juvenile crime, and children that are sentenced to adult prison are vulnerable to abuse and rape.
In today's society juveniles are being tried in adult courts, given the death penalty, and sent to prison. Should fourteen-year olds accused of murder or rape automatically be tried as adults? Should six-teen year olds and seven-teen year olds tried in adult courts be forced to serve time in adult prisons, where they are more likely to be sexually assaulted and to become repeat offenders. How much discretion should a judge have in deciding the fate of a juvenile accused of a crime - serious, violent, or otherwise? The juvenile crime rate that was so alarming a few years ago has begun to fall - juvenile felony arrest rates in California have declined by more than forty percent in the last twenty years. While California's juvenile population rose by a half a million since the middle and late 1970's, juveniles made up less than fifth-teen percent of California's felony arrests in 1998, compared to thirty percent in 1978; according to the Justice Policy Institute. The juvenile arrests have dropped back, even as the population of kids between ages of ten and eight-teen has continued to grow, and the number of kids confined in the California Youth Authority (CYA) has fallen. With all the progress our society has made in cutting back in juvenile crimes there is still a very serious problem. But if locking kids up is the best way to address it, how do we explain a drop in crime when there are more teens in California and fewer in custody? First we must look at the economy around us. With so many job opportunities available more and more teenagers find honest ways to keep busy and make money. Our generation has a brighter future than the generation a decade ago. Next we look at successful crime prevention efforts: after-school programs, mentoring, teen outreach programs, truancy abatement, anti-gang programs, family resource centers. There is evidence that these programs are beginning to pay off. Sending more, and younger teens through the adult court system has been a trend across the country in reaction to crimes, such as school shootings and violent rapes. Yet evidence shows that treating youth as adults does not reduce crime. In Florida, where probability wise more kids are tried as adults then in any other state, studies found that youth sent through the adult court system are twice as likely to commit more crimes when they're release...
In 1899, the nation’s first juvenile court for youth under the age of 16 was established in Chicago to provide rehabilitation rather than punishment. By 1925, following the Chicago model, all but two states had juvenile courts whose goals were to turn youth into productive citizens utilizing treatment that included warnings, probation, and training school confinement(Cox et al. 2014, p.2). Treatment lasted until the child was “cured” or turned 21. Although judges spoke with the offending children and decided upon the punishment, the lack of established rules and poor rehabilitation led to unfair treatment. In 1967 “ U.S. Supreme Court case of In re Gault held that juveniles were entitled to the same constitutional due process rights as adults, beginning a national reform in juvenile justice and the system was repaired to afford children many of the same rights that adults have in court” (Cox et al. 2014, p.4). Also, state legislatures passed laws to crack down on juvenile crime, as recently, states have attempted strike a balance in their approach to juvenile justice systems as research suggests that locking youth away in large, secure juvenile facilities is ineffective treatment towards different genders in which it doesn’t provide appropriate rehabilitation.
A deep look into juveniles in adult prisons. Touch bases on several smaller issues that contribute to juveniles being in and effects of adult prisons. The United States Bureau of Prisons handles two hundred and thirty-nine juveniles and their average age is seventeen. Execution of juveniles, The United States is one of only six countries to execute juveniles. There are sixty-eight juveniles sitting on death row for crimes committed as juveniles. Forty-three of those inmates are minorities. People, who are too young to vote, drink alcohol, or drive are held to the same standard of responsibility as adults. In prisons, they argue that the juveniles become targets of older, more hardened criminals. Brian Stevenson, Director of the Alabama Capital Resource Center said, “We have totally given up in the idea of reform of rehabilitation for the very young. We are basically saying we will throw those kids away. Leading To Prison Juvenile Justice Bulletin Report shows that two-thirds of juveniles apprehended for violent offenses were released or put on probation. Only slightly more than one-third of youths charged with homicide was transferred to adult criminal court. Little more than one out of every one hundred New York youths arrested for muggings, beatings, rape and murder ended up in a correctional institution. Another report showed a delinquent boy has to be arrested on average thirteen times before the court will act more restrictive than probation. Laws began changing as early as 1978 in New York to try juveniles over 12 who commit violent crimes as adults did. However, even since the laws changed only twenty percent of serious offenders served any time. The decision of whether to waive a juven...
The focus of the juvenile justice system is to rehabilitate juvenile offenders, rather than to imprison and punish like the systems adult counterpart. According to Caldwell (1961) the juvenile justice system is based on the principle that youth are developmentally and fundamentally different from adults. This has lead to the development of a separate justice system for juveniles that was initially designed to assist troubled juveniles providing them with protection, treatment, and guidance. When performing as it is designed and up to the initial intentions, the juvenile court balances rehabilitation (treatment) of the offender with suitable sanctions when necessary such as incarceration. According to Mack (1909) the focus of the juvenile justice system has shifted from “how can we help the child”, “why did the child commit the crime” to “was the crime committed”. According to Griffin (2008) in some cases juveniles may be required to be “transferred” to adult court. The prerequisites for transfer to adult court are the duty to protect the public from violent youths, serious crime, and the lack of rehabilitation chance from the juvenile court. According to Flesch (2004) many jurisdictions handle the issue of serious juvenile crime by charging juveniles as adults. Charging a juvenile as an adult is done by a method which is called waiver to adult court. This waiver allows adult criminal court to have the power to exercise jurisdiction over juveniles and handle the juvenile’s case as an adult’s case would be tried. According to Flesch (2004) a juvenile is both tried and if convicted of the crime the juvenile will be sentenced as an adult when his or her case is waived from the juvenile court. Waiver to adult court initially was viewe...
The United States has been affected by a number of crimes committed by juveniles. The juvenile crime rate has been increasing in recent years. Everyday more juveniles commit crimes for various reasons. They act as adults when they are not officially adults. There is a discussion about how juveniles should be punished if they commit heinous crimes. While many argue that juveniles who commit serious crimes, such as murder, should be treated as adults, the fact is, juveniles under the age of eighteen, are not adults, and should not be treated as such.
Today?s court system is left with many difficult decisions. One of the most controversial being whether to try juveniles as adults or not. With the number of children in adult prisons and jails rising rapidly, questions are being asked as to why children have been committing such heinous crimes and how will they be stopped. The fact of the matter is that it is not always the children's fault for their poor choices and actions; they are merely a victim of their environment or their parents. Another question asked is how young is too young. Children who are too young to see an R rated film unaccompanied are being sent to adult prisons. The only boundaries that seem to matter when it comes to being an adult are laws that restrain kids from things such as alcohol, pornography, and other materials seen as unethical. Children that are sent to adult prison are going to be subjected to even more unprincipled ideas and scenes. When children can be sent to jail for something as minor as a smash and grab burglary, the judicial system has errors. The laws that send juveniles to adult prisons are inhumane, immoral, and unjust. Kids are often incompetent, which leads to unfair trials. Adult prisons are also very dangerous for minors, and in many cases this leads to more juvenile crimes.