The case of People v. Smith (1991) is a case settling the question of whether or not a past juvenile record could be used in the sentencing of an adult offender. The defendant, Ricky Franklin Smith, was convicted on his guilty plea to breaking and entering and being a habitual offender, fourth offense. His contention is that he should have been resentenced because the presentence investigation report contained an expunged juvenile record; he based his argument on Michigan Court Rules (MCR) MCR 5.913, now MCR 5.925(E) Expungement of Records, and believed that it could not be used and prejudiced the court. His case made it to the Michigan Supreme Court which reversed the Court of Appeals decision, which was based on an earlier decision, People v. Price (1988), which ruled “that a juvenile record, automatically expunged pursuant to MCR 5.913 could not be considered at sentencing.” In Price, the court concluded… "[I]s delusive and purposeless if law enforcement agencies may continue to use supposedly expunged records against a defendant to his prejudice” (People v. Smith, p. 297, 1991). The presentence investigation report in question outlined Smith's previous record, which included twelve juvenile entries. The sentencing judge imposed the sentence because Smith's record included seven prior felonies and three misdemeanors, and he viewed the sentence as …show more content…
McFarlin (1973) and People v. Jones (1988) and cited two key elements, "[m]odern sentencing policy attempts to tailor the sentence to the particular offender and the circumstances of the case" (People v. McFarlin, 1973) and "complete information is necessary to set an individualized sentence and that rehabilitative goals would not be served by preventing a sentencing judge from considering information about a defendant's juvenile criminal history" (People v. Jones, 1988). The Court concluded that the Jones decision was more appropriate and was the right
The Bryan v McPherson case is in reference to the use of a Taser gun. Carl Bryan was stopped by Coronado Police Department Officer McPherson for not wearing his seatbelt. Bryan was irate with himself for not putting it back on after being stopped and cited by the California Highway Patrol for speeding just a short time prior to encountering Officer McPherson. Officer McPherson stated that Mr. Bryan was acting irrational, not listening to verbal commands, and exited his vehicle after being told to stay in his vehicle. “Then, without any warning, Officer McPherson shot Bryan with his ModelX26 Taser gun” (Wu, 2010, p. 365). As a result of being shot with a Taser, he fell to the asphalt face first causing severe damage to his teeth and bruising
II. Trial Court Ruling. The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s sexual harassment claim. The plaintiff’s retaliation claim went to trial, but the court excluded evidence regarding the alleged sexual harassment. The court refused to grant the plaintiff a new trial. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s ruling.
Ashley Smith was a young girl that was placed in a juvenile detention centre at age 15 for throwing apples at a mail man. Her short sentence quickly extended into a life sentence because of so many infractions within the prison system. Ashley suffered from extreme mental health issues and was place in a psychiatric prison facility, however this facility was shown in the documentary to be corrupt and their actions with Ashley were extremely illegal. Furthermore, Ashley wasn’t given the proper help and treatment that she needed, instead she was physically and verbally abused by guards in the prison, and she ultimately passed away in the prison. Her death is still being debated about whether
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 article titled “ Juvenile Justice from Both Sides of the Bench”, published by PBS, and written by Janet Tobias and Michael Martin informs readers on numerous judges’ opinions on the juveniles being tried as adults. Judge Thomas Edwards believed that juveniles should not be tried as adults because they are still not mature enough to see the consequences of their actions and have a chance to minimize this behavior through rehabilitation programs. Judge LaDoris Cordell argues that although we shouldn’t give up on juveniles and instead help them be a part of society, however, she believes that some sophisticated teens that create horrible crimes should be tried as adults. Bridgett Jones claims that teens think differently than adults and still
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.
Belshaw, S. H., Caudill, J. W., Delisi, M., and Trulson, C. R. (2011). A Problem of Fit: Extreme Delinquents, Blended Sentencing, and the Determinants of Continued Adult Sanctions. Criminal Justice Policy Review. 22(3) pp. 263
Most states had stiffer criminal sanction in place before the three strikes law came into play for repeat offender and most of these criminals would serve lengthy terms for their repeat offenses anyways, however the discretion to impose those lengthy prison sentences was at the hands of the judge time (1 Marvell, Moody 90). One must also consider that not all criminals are even aware that the three strike law exist much less are aware of what its implications would be on their repeat offenses. An...
...ing beckoned in with the 21st century. While U.S.’s JLWOP laws are inconsistent with many human rights treatises and with international law, it is more important for our policies to be based on a thorough understanding of the issue- the most essential being a separation of the processes for juvenile and adult criminal offenders. With an emphasis on rehabilitation for juvenile offenders, and the goal of encouraging maturity and personal development after wayward actions, the futures of many teens in the criminal justice system can become much more hopeful.
The juvenile system is based on the ideas of treatment and rehabilitation, while the adult system is based on the ideas of punishment. Another issue arises when discussion of waiving cases to the adult system due to juvenile mental capacity. Studies found that the “mental capacity of youth under the age of 16 to stand (adult) trial is far below that of a similarly charged adults” (Siegel & Welsh, p. 365). Therefore, this proves that many juveniles do not understand the consequences of their action and should not be sentenced the same.
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.
According to the National Institute of Justice truth in sentencing refers to a range of sentencing practices that aim to reduce the uncertainty about the length of time that offenders must serve in prison. Throughout the United States, there has been much legislative activity related to truth in sentencing. “The Truth in Sentencing movement began in 1984 during the extreme overcrowding crises that plagued America during the 1980s and 1990s” (Timothy S. Carr 2008). There were a few discrepancies between the sentence imposed by the judge and the amount of time the offender served in prison. TIS was put in affect to seek the disagreement. States were encourage by the federal government to increase the use of incarceration. If states decided to increase their incarceration they were funded a federal grant to construct, develop, expand, or improve correctional facilities in order to ensure that prison cell space was available for confinement of offenders. There were federal efforts to motivate prisons to increase their incarceration to earn the federally funded grant through two programs called The Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-sentencing (TIS). To receive VOI funding, States needed to give assurance that it will implement policies that guaranteed that violent offender serve majority of their sentences and also guarantee that the time serve was respectively related to the offender’s status and to keep the public safe.
To begin with an article title “digest crime control” it is said it that a chronic juvenile male or female offender can be tried in adult court depending on how violent the crime is. This was decision was made by the 8th circuit based on case that took place in the district of Nebraska. To summarize the case, it involved a mail offender who beats someone and let him die. When the autopsy came it was proven that 12 hour after he got beaten he could have been saved. The defense team for the juvenile said that the boy was mentally ill and didn’t know what he was doing. But when the circuit looked into his record they saw that this was his first offense with the law and that he had multiple battery charges filled against him for battery. So they circuit had to make the decision that if this wasn’t your first offense for the same type of crime you will be taking into adult court and get tried as an adult.
The juvenile justice system in America has been suffered several stages and changes in the process of administration of justice to juvenile offender, today as result of this changes exist an application of the law to the juvenile offender with individual justice and an adequate rehabilitation that is fundamental to the system (DC: National Juvenile Red de justice, 2012)
Johnson, J. B., & Secret, P. E. (1990). Race and juvenile court decision making revisited.” Criminal Justice Policy Review, 4(2), 159-187.