Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
The effectiveness of the juvenile court
Juveniles rights
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The effectiveness of the juvenile court
Juveniles rights
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
This case appears to shed light on a situation where many juveniles before Kent could have not been given the right protection of due process under the 5th and 14th amendment in the constitution. In re Gault (1967) Citation: Kent v. United States, 383 U. S. 541, 562 (1966) Procedural History: Gault was taken into custody on a compliant that he had made lewd telephone calls to his neighbor. He was taken into custody while his parents was at work and they was not notified and came home looking for him. Issue: Were the procedures used to commit Gault constitutionally legitimate under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Should juveniles have the same due process rights as adults?
The juvenile courts need to go off of the seriousness of the case. In my opinion, if juveniles don’t get the proper charges, then there is always a chance that the juvenile could always continue to commit crimes. In this case, I believe Kent did not fully get his basic due process rights that should be granted to him. He was never fully investigated, which lead to the waiver eventually being
Kent v. United States Juveniles… not old enough to vote, drive, buy/use alcohol, enter casinos, or even see a rated “R” movie legally. So, then what makes them eligible to be tried as adults in the court of law? A common sense decision to enforce more mature behavior, or a glaring flaw in the system that causes more conflict than solution? There are many opinions on how juvenile court decisions should be handled in our judicial system today. The verdicts of numerous trials in the 60’s , including Kent v. United States(1966), came at a time of major development in the court system of the United States, and are still a huge topic of discussions today.
The narrative begins in 1993 with the sickening murder of Shirley Crook by seventeen-year-old Christopher Simmons. The Missourian had plotted to, “… commit burglary and murder by breaking and entering, tying up the victim, and throwing that victim off a bridge” (543 US 551, at 556-57). When the disfigured body of Mrs. Crook was located, authorities arrested Simmons who quickly confessed to the killing and was sent to court to be tried as an adult. During the trial, both the prosecutor and defense applied Simmons’ age as a justification for their arguments. The defense stated that Simmons’ age was a mitigating factor, citing several legal limitations on the capabilities of minors and in opposition, the prosecutor argued that it was actually
While children’s personhood is sufficient to qualify them as constitutional rights holders, “children’s rights have, from the outset, looked different from adults’ rights, and the Court has made some effort to account for these differences.” In general, the Court recognizes three justifications for the conclusion that the constitutional rights of children cannot be equated with those of adults: (1) the peculiar vulnerability of children; (2) their inability to make critical decisions in an informed, mature manner; and (3) the importance of the
Kent v. United States 383 US 541 (1966) PROCEDURAL FACTS The defendant, Morris Kent Jr., was arrested by authorities under the Juvenile Court of the District of Columbia under charges of housebreaking, robbery, and rape. The defendant was subject to exclusive jurisdiction under the Juvenile Court as he was 16 at the time. Juvenile court jurisdiction was waived and Kent was sent to trial under the regular procedure of the District Court. The defendant was convicted under the District Court of the District of Columbia on six counts of robbery and housebreaking but was acquitted of the rape charges by plea of insanity.
While in the background of the officer reading the juvenile file, seated behind Lani was her mother. Puffy red eyes since refusal of sleep, salty tears dripping down her face, with heavy sobs that echoed through the courtroom. The courtroom began to look at the blur with color. The misery this mother felt locked in her throat, also feeling as if nothing matters now. As the third offense was being read, Lani finally glimpses to see her mother, and in clear view she saw a heartbroken mother.
The first major court case to influence our treatment of juveniles today was the Kent v. United States. The case overall, made an impact on the treatment of juveniles today because now juveniles have a right to an attorney, the parents must be notified and either parents or a lawyer must be present during an interrogation, and juveniles must be reminded of his or her right to silence. The main thing that this case influenced was that courts must allow juveniles the right to defend themselves and to be heard when transferring a juvenile over to the adult system. A second major court case was In re Gault.
Case Brief Title & Citation: 1. Kent V United States 2. 383 U.S. 541 (1966) The Facts: The police detained and questioned 16-year old Morris A. Kent Jr., in connection with several incidents involving theft by force and rape. After admitting to having some involvement, the juvenile court canceled its legal control, allowing the court to try Kent as an adult.
There have been many times over the years where a child commits a crime and they either get the punishment of a child or they get the punishment of an adult depending on their age, or depending on what the crime they committed was. If you send a child to adult prison it is a lot more harsh than juve so they have to be kept from the other inmates because it is too dangerous for them to be around them. The children transferred to criminal court were less likely to commit the same crime than those who went through the juvenile system. The children who re offended offended sooner and more often than the children who were tried in the juvenile court. In some states if the child is convicted in criminal court they can plead insanity and get out of the of the sentence they would be facing.
We have seen today in society of how crime rates have been rampant and how statistics show that most of the crimes were being made by minors. I believe that when most of them look at the bottom of these young offenders come disproportionately from impoverished single-parent homes that are located in the neighbourhoods desinvertido and have high rates of learning disabilities, mental health, and substance abuse and problems with the help of the system of juvenile justice that can make a great return on a successful transition to adulthood. Their ages ranged from 20 and under, most are under fifteen years of age. Juveniles tried as adults must assume the same consequences as any other criminal and are subject to state prisons with inmates much higher and that have probably committed crimes much more tortuous then you could ever have. These minors between the ages of nine to twenty according to the offence committed or of the number of times that are prosecuted and believe that it is immutable.
There are many children in the world who are being put behind bars and detained for alleged wrongdoing without protections they are entitled to. Throughout the world, children are charged and sentenced for actions that should not be considered as adult crimes. Here in the United States, the minimum age of criminal responsibility is age 12. Law enforcement officials and those in the juvenile justice system nationwide tend to mistreat underage individuals by trying cases while working through the lens of an adult. Unfair punishments are still handed down domestically, which is in violation of Supreme Court law.
The third suggestion would be fixing the Juvenile court system. There had been many unfair cases among youth offenders for over the last 50 years. Cases where youth offenders end up being charged as an adult, being charged for the crimes they have done and their sentencing. According to the Model for change article on Juvenile indigent defense, “Young people in trouble with the law have a right to legal counsel, but they frequently don’t get the timely or adequate representation they need” (“Reform Areas”). Other than the unfair charges for youth, when it comes for youth having the right to counsel and accept plea offers, they will not fully understand their actions.
The juvenile justice system has made numerous of ethical issues when managing juvenile offenders. The issue with the juvenile justice system is the laws and rules that govern it. It has led to years of controversial debate over the ethical dilemmas of the juvenile corrections system, and how they work with youth offenders. The number of minors entering the juvenile justice system is increasing every month. The reasons why the juvenile justice system faces ethical dilemmas is important and needs to be addressed: (1) a vast proportion of juveniles are being tried and prosecuted as adults; (2) the psychological maturation of the juvenile to fully comprehend the justice system; and (3) the factors that contribute to minorities being adjudicated in the juvenile justice system are more likely than White offenders.
Annotated bibliography Childress, S. (2016, June 2). More States Consider Raising the Age for Juvenile Crime. Retrieved from PBS: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/more-states-consider-raising-the-age-for-juvenile-crime/ More states are considering to raising the age for juvenile crimes before being tried as adult because young offender's mental capacity. The idea is to cut the cost of incarcerate young offender in adult prison and ensure offenders to receive proper education and specialized care to change their behavior. Putting children in adult prison does not deter crime.