Discussion 1: Legal Rights of Juveniles in Custody
Introduction
Dealing with juvenile offenders presents special problems not faced by the police when they deal with adult offenders. This fact sometimes conflicts with their primary policing mission, which is law enforcement. Beginning the early nineteenth century, juvenile delinquents in the United States were treated the same as adult criminal offenders. When found guilty of offenses they were given punitive sentences analogous to those imposed on adult offenders. The adult criminal code applied to children, and no juvenile court existed. Until the 1960s, juveniles were not protected by the constitution because of the rehabilitative nature of the Juvenile Justice System. It was in that decade
…show more content…
Once a juvenile has been taken into custody, the child has the same Fourth Amendment rights as an adult to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Children in police custody can be detained prior to trial, interrogated, and placed in lineups. However, because of their youth and inexperience, children are afforded more protections than adults. Police must be careful that the juvenile suspect apprehends his legal rights and, if there is some interrogation, they must grant contact to a parent to safeguard the juvenile’s constitutional interest.
While in custody, the juvenile is also protected under the Fifth Amendment. It states that any person charged with a crime is protected against self-incrimination. Thus, a person is not required to answer any questions that can be used against him or her in court. For most of the 19th century, children were not protected by this amendment this was because rehabilitation was the goal of the Juvenile Justice System, not punishment. Police often questioned juveniles without their parents or even an attorney present. Any incriminating statements arising from such custodial interrogation could be used at trial. However in 1966, a landmark case, Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court placed constitutional limitations on police interrogation procedure used with offenders. The comparable landmark case with regard to juvenile offenders proceeding was In re Gault in 1967. In the past, police often
Case 442 U.S. 707 Fare v. Michael C. February 27, 1979 through June 20, 1979. This case involves Michael C., a sixteen year old juvenile, brought to the police station in California by Van Nuys police on a murder investigation. The juvenile was read his Miranda prophylactic protection rights before being questioned; he requested to speak to his probation officer but was denied. Michael agreed to speak with the officers and also waived his rights to counsel. While doing this, he brought forward incriminating statements against him that in return, the juvenile landed himself in court on a murder trial.
The question specifically posed for the court to address is whether the courts should consider the age of a juvenile suspect when deciding whether he or she is in custody for Miranda purposes. The Supreme Court issued an opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor determining that a age should be considered when determining if a juvenile suspect is in custody and should be issued their Miranda rights. Sotomayor’s opinion stated, “It is beyond dispute that children will often feel bound to submit to police questioning when an adult in the same circumstances would feel free to leave. Seeing no reason for police officers or courts to blind themselves to that commonsense reality, we hold that a child’s age properly informs the Miranda custody analysis” (The Oyez Project as IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law). The case was returned to a lower court to determine how the age of J.D.B. may have impacted the statements and evidence obtained by
In the case of Fare versus Michael C., the question at hand is whether a juvenile defendant requesting to speak with his probation officers was a violation of his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The important issue was to dissect rather Michael C. requesting to have his probation officer present was equivalent to an attorney representation. When informed that this was not possible, he waived his rights and made admissions. In 1979, police officers arrested sixteen-year-old Michael C. involving him in a murder that occurred during a robbery in the victim's home. Since the age of twelve, Michael had been on probation and had a long criminal offense background.
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
Crossroads Juvenile Center Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation Crossroads Juvenile Center In contemporary times, there is an increasing tendency for juvenile involvement in crime. The frequency and the severity of the crimes has increased so much that there are call for trial of delinquents as adults in extreme cases. The juvenile justice system however has a stronger emphasis on correctional activities and giving the under-age offenders a chance to change and make something useful of their lives. The Crossroads Juvenile Center is a detention facility in New York, it development and operations demonstrate the desire of the juvenile justice system to effects changes in the children admitted to these systems.
Arizona case like certain colonial laws and the Fifth and Sixth Amendment, many ignored the precedent and subjected individuals to torture and other inhumane interrogation tactics to acquire confessions from accused individuals. The Miranda v. Arizona case specified that the accused must be read their rights to prevent self-incrimination to prevent false confessions that stemmed from coercion, which had not been explicitly stated in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Therefore, the Miranda v. Arizona case served to fully complete the legal promise of self-incrimination that had already been guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendments in the Bill of Rights and previous
It is shocking to know that before 1967 youths in the United States did not have the same rights as adults in court. Before the landmark case In Re Gault individuals underage were not promised the freedoms under the fourteenth amendment. The court system did not take juvenile delinquent cases as seriously. It was almost as if they brushed the delinquents under the rug and put them into a detention center the first chance they got. The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that in the case of In Re Gault the requirements for due process were not met.
The federal government’s “War on Crime” by the Johnson administration in the 60s made way for tougher law enforcement and surveillance (Hinton, 2015). However, with this came the separation of children and adults in the criminal justice system; then the separation of juvenile delinquents from status offenders. As mentioned, status offenders are different from juvenile delinquents because they had broken rules which apply to only children. Meanwhile, juvenile delinquents are youths under the age of 18, who committed offenses that would be punishable to adults as well. By the late 1960s, there became a growing concern that juveniles involved in the court-based status-offense system, were not getting their best interests met (Shubik & Kendall, 2007).
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.
The 8th Amendment plays a significant role in this case. This is significant for our civil liberties. Along with the eighth amendment when lawyers use children’s characteristics including age, which are using precedents in these types of cases. This is used to guide the decision in the courtroom. An example of this happening is Jackson v Hobbs which is another case of a juvenile committing a harsh crime that would have been punished with life in prison without parole if the defendant was not a child.
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.
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.
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.
In today’s world there are countless crimes committed every single day. “In 2015, there were 1.42 million total arrests, at a rate of 3,641 arrests per 100,000 residents” (State of California, Department of Justice). Grown adults are not the only people being arrested every year, there are also juveniles, children, being arrested every day. One topic of controversy today is whether or not juveniles who commit these crimes should be tried as adults in criminal court. There are many differences between the justice system for adults and the justice system for juveniles.
Can you imagine waking up behind closed walls and bars? Waking up to see your inmate who is a 45-year-old bank robber and you are a 14-year-old minor who made a big mistake. This is why minors who have committed crimes should not be treated the same as adults. Some reasons are because the consequences given to minors in adult court would impact a minor’s life in a negative way. If a minor is tried through a juvenile court, they have a greater chance of rehabilitation.