Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Juvenile delinquency and criminal justice system
Issues in juvenile delinquency
Juvenile delinquency and criminal justice system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Juvenile delinquency and criminal justice system
Gault V. United States, S. 1, 87S.Ct. 1428, 18L.Ed.2d 527 (1967) I. Facts: 15-year-old delinquent, Gerald Gault and a friend were arrested after being accused of making a lewd phone call to a neighbor. Gerald’s parents were not notified of the situation. After a hearing, the juvenile court judge ordered Gerald to surrender to the State Industrial School until he reached the age of minority (21). Gerald's attorney petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the state of Arizona for violating the juvenile’s 14th Amendment due process rights. The Superior Court of Arizona and the Arizona State Supreme Court both dismissed the writ affirmatively deciding that the juvenile’s due process rights were not violated. II. Issues: Were the Defendant’s Fourteenth Amendment Rights under the Due Process Clause violated? Does Due Process apply to juveniles the same as it does to adults? The Supreme Court addressed the following issues In Re Gault 1967: (1) Was there an issue of due process (2) Notification of the charges (3) Notice of Right to counsel and/or appointment (4) Right to confrontation and cross examine accuser (5) A Defendant’s right against self-incrimination (6) A right to receive a transcript/recording of proceeding (7) The right to appeal III. Holding: (1) Based on case law from Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, the Supreme Court held that the essentials of due process must be followed. The first holding given by the Supreme Court involved the indirect issue of due process. The Supreme Court held that in juvenile court proceedings the juvenile must be treated fairly and be given the essentials of due process. (2) Notice of the charges: An adequate written notice must be provided to a juvenile and his or h... ... middle of paper ... ...om. The Court found Officer Flagg took and used against him, Gerald Gault’s confession without his parents or any counsel being present and never notifying the juvenile of his right to remain silent. (6) Right to a transcript of the proceedings: The Supreme Court did not rule upon the issue of defendant’s right to receive a transcript. (7) Right to appellate review: The Supreme Court did not rule regarding appeal since their ruling was this case was to be remanded back to the lower courts. VI. Opinion: Justice Fortas delivered the opinion of the Court. The Judgment of the Arizona Supreme Court is reversed and the matter remanded. Justices Black and White concurred with the Court’s opinion. Justice Harlan concurred in part and dissented in part; and Justice Stewart dissented based on his opinion that juvenile hearings are not the same as adversary proceedings.
The Court ruled for the juvenile, stating that his rights to due process were indeed violated according to the Fourteenth Amendment. “The proceedings of the Juvenile Court failed to comply with the Constitution. The Court held that the proceedings for juveniles had to comply with the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment” (Oyez, n.d.). The Court analyzed the juvenile court's method of handling cases, verifying that, while there are good reasons behind handling juveniles in a different way from adults, adolescents seeking to settling delinquency and detainment cases are qualified for certain procedural safeguards under the Due Process Act of the Fourteenth
The Supreme Court exercised its interpretation of the Constitution and found that a violation of the First Amendment was apparent and therefore, also a violation of the fourteenth Amendment showing that due process of the law was not given.
This decision requires that unless a suspect in custody has been informed of his constitutional rights before questioning anything he says may not be introduced in a court of law.
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.
The Juvenile Justice System in the State of Texas celebrated its 100 Birthday in 1999. Many people believe that the Juvenile Justice system is equal to the adult system and that juveniles are punished as adults are but that is not always the truth. The Texas Juvenile System is made up of a mixture of the Criminal Law and the Civil Law. It is governed by The Juvenile Justice Code which is called the Title 3 of Texas Family Code. The only similarities that are shared with the Adult system are that it also refers to the Texas Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedures for rules. The steps of The Court Procedures are: If a child is arrested, they are detained in a child facility, a child is not bonded out but most go before a judge. Once before the judge, it is decided if a petition will be filed depending upon the severity of the offense. The child can then make his or her pleading if the child wishes to plead not guilty a jury child can be requested. Even if there is a jury trial, only the judge can determine the punishment. The judge is also limited to the punishment that he or she can sentence because of the Juvenile Code’s Progressive Sanction Levels. This is the method which the Juvenile system uses to rank crimes.
The Supreme Court Justices involved in this case consisted of seven men to make the final decision and they are listed as followed:
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.
The 6th Amendment guarantees a person accused of a crime compulsory process, the right to present witnesses in his defense. The importance of compulsory process is illustrated in the case Washington vs. Texas, where Jackie Washington was tried for murder. A state court ruled that Washington could not have an accomplice in the crime testify in his defense. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the state’s refusal to allow the defendant a capable witness violated the 6th Amendment. Therefore, the Supreme Court overruled the court’s c...
Due process is a clause present in the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights and is reiterated in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The fact that it is mentioned twice in the Constitution speaks to its importance. Due process upholds the standard that guilt must be proven and not merely assumed. Overtime most libertie...
The Juvenile Justice system, since its conception over a century ago, has been one at conflict with itself. Originally conceived as a fatherly entity intervening into the lives of the troubled urban youths, it has since been transformed into a rigid and adversarial arena restrained by the demands of personal liberty and due process. The nature of a juvenile's experience within the juvenile justice system has come almost full circle from being treated as an adult, then as an unaccountable child, now almost as an adult once more.
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 juveniles 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 to understand their actions or be provided a second chance.
June/July 21-26. Eldelfonso, Edward. A. Law Enforcement and the Youth offenders: Juvenile Procedures. New York: Wiley, 1967. Hyde, Margaret O. & Co.
As of 2007, nine states have granted juveniles the constitutional right to request a jury trial. Eleven more states will grant a jury trial under very narrow circumstances such as when juveniles may be subject to adult incarceration facilities, violent and serial offenders, as well as juveniles who seek appellate review of their disposition. That leaves thirty-one jurisdictions, including Maine, that have fallen into the shadow of the Supreme Court decision McKeiver v. Pennsylvania to not yet extend jury trials in juvenile court systems. But the landscape of juvenile courts looks much different today than it did forty-three years ago when McKeiver was decided. The juvenile system is no longer so distinct from its criminal counterpart; in fact, juvenile courts have developed many punitive practices that go against the idea of a purely rehabilitative focus. This paper will focus on the origins of the jury trial and the juvenile justice system, the constitutional arguments that render jury trials necessary in juvenile courts, policy arguments for the functioning of those jury trials, and how jury trials fit and thus should be included in the Maine Juvenile Code.
Since the establishment of the first juvenile court in Chicago Illinois for over 100 years (Grisso, 199,813) ago, psychologists have continued to show a strong presence in juvenile proceedings and assist the juvenile justice system, as well as young people involved in it. a special court and the justice system for minors, partly in response to the recognition that adolescents, while clearly shows greater cognitive, emotional and behavioral capacities were established than their younger counterparts, do not have many of the skills that adults and relevant to the legal decision making and criminal responsibility (Otto and Borum, 2004) demonstrators. As a result, the juvenile court was to consider the criminal behavior of minors in context of development, with a greater emphasis on rehabilitation and decreased attention on the punishment (Zimring, 2000). Since the juvenile court was to focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment, the dramatic changes in the landscape of juvenile justice in 1966 and 1967, changing forever the denial of constitutional guarantees for minors. In its decisions in Kent v. United States (1966) and In re Gault (1967), the Supreme Court of the United States asked if the ideal rehabilitation of the
Treating juveniles as a separate class in the criminal justice system did not exist until the late nineteenth century. Juveniles were grouped with all other violators of law within the nation’s courts. Along with rapid industrialization, urbanization, immigration, and social change that shocked our society came the necessary reforms to the criminal law system that saw things like probation, parole, undetermined sentences, and most importantly for the subject at hand, the juvenile court system. Recognizing the need for different type of solution, states began to adopt “open-ended, ...