In the reading In re Gault, it was determined the minor Gault violated a law and state ordinance by the judge when he was taken to court. The judge, McGhee, said that he had violated “ARS 8-201-6 (a), which specifies that a "delinquent child" includes one ‘who has violated a law of the state or an ordinance or regulation of a political subdivision thereof.’ The law which Gerald was found to have violated is ARS 13-377. This section of the Arizona Criminal Code provides that a person who "in the presence or hearing of any woman or child . . . uses vulgar, abusive or obscene language, is guilty of a misdemeanor. . . ." In my own opinion I do not believe that Gault had committed such a crime that deserved the kind of punishment he was sentenced. He was sentenced to spend the length of his minority, until 21, in a State Industrial School.
Gault and his friend had prank called a women and harassed her by making crude and lewd comments to her, which is completely wrong of them to do, but sentencing a minor to a State Industrial School until the age of 21 is a bit of a long sentence for that sort of crime. I do think him and his friend committed a crime by calling that women, but a misdemeanor at the most. The rights he should have been given in court was a fair trial for a kid his age. The judge was very harsh on him, which I guess may have been a
…show more content…
Making the boys work for free to help the community would have been a way for them to see they did something wrong but not have the extremity of being sentences to a State Industrial School for years. The punishment of making them do the community service would also give them time to think about what they did wrong. They would also be doing the service in their free time and it would probably prevent them from doing something like that again for fear of having to do more community service or
Michael C., the juvenile, requesting to speak to his probation officer is not the same as asking to speak to an attorney. My opinion on this case would be I feel that the Van Nuys Police Department was more concern about getting to the bottom of this murder even with the fact their suspect could be a juvenile. Their concerns of whether or not the juvenile, Michael C. understood the seriousness of the charges, his rights and his maturity level of understanding was not important. I do not feel his Fifth Amendment was violated when asked to speak to his probation
On November 16, 1972, student protestors at Southern University A&M College located in Baton Rouge took place at the campus's administration building. To remove the protestors, deputies and the state police tossed tear gas canisters into the building, which the people threw back out of the windows. Two students were killed during the protest, Denver A. Smith and Leonard D. Brown. Denver Allen Smith was born August 2, 1952 and died November 16,1972.
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
Should Schools Monitor Students Social Media!?!? Have you ever showed up at school and had a friend or classmate tell you about a rumor directed towards you? I think schools should monitor students social media posts but, only if there seems to be problems occurring and disrupting the class. Cyberbullying can lead to low self esteem and depression, causing worse things. Document E, document B and, document D all agree with limiting/monitoring students online speech.
Alas, the judge didn't listen to the lawyer and sent Morris to be tried in adult court. While there, he was found guilty and sentenced to 30-90 years in prison. Morris appealed, saying that case should've stayed in
This has turned into a landmark case because it has altered the way the juvenile delinquent court system runs. A teenager of fifteen years old, Gerald Gault found himself accused of making an obscene telephone call. The victim was a neighbor Mrs. Cook, who reported the incident to police on June 8, 1964. A police officer then located Gault and arrested him on the charges (United States Courts). In an interview with Gualt he describes the way officials handles his case.
I believe that this program does in fact help these kids. If you just lock them up for a few days nothing gets done, and some of them might think of other ways to do things without getting caught. Being a teen I know that sometimes we do not think things through, and for this, the Shakespeare
As we mentioned earlier, the freshman’s mother mentioned to coach McElroy the fact that the upperclassman was calling her son those insulting names. This incident could have been foreseeable by the coaches, and possibly the administration, if the coach reported anything to the principal and athletic director. The Mepham High School football season was eventually cancelled and the three upperclassman were charged with “involuntary deviate sexual intercourse,” “aggravated assault,” “kidnapping,” “unlawful restraint,” “false imprisonment,” “terroristic threats,” “criminal coercion,” “simple assault,” “reckless endangering of another person,” “ethnic intimidation,” and “criminal conspiracy.” Judge Robert J. Conway chose to try the accused as juveniles.
The Christopher Vaughn case is a popular case in which ballistics and blood spatter aided in solving. Vaughn pleaded not guilty in court, and the defense stuck to the case that it was a murder-suicide case involving his wife. Paul Kish, a blood spatter expert assigned to the case, said that the evidence found at the crime scene did not correlate with Vaughn’s story. Vaughn’s blood was found in many different places; the center console, on his wife’s shorts, on the front and back of her seatbelt, and on the carpet between her shoes. Vaughn’s original statement did not mention the blood present on the seatbelt.
For example, Nathaniel Brazill was 13 years old when he was guilty of shooting a middle school and charged with second degree murder. He says that he made a “stupid mistake” but was convicted of second degree murder not first. In the article, “Startling Finds on Teenage Brains” it says that, “a child is not a man.” Meaning that a child shouldn 't be getting treated as an adult no they
To some this is what he deserved. They might believe that Tate should suffer the penalty of his actions. This is how they feel towards thousands of adolescents that are getting charged with life without
The problem arose when the parents were dissatisfied with the due process hearing;
A public school cannot suspend a student with no notice or hearing because it infringes on his or her rights. The specific amendments broken by the public school officials are primarily the fifth and sixth. Public schools are not allowed to take away rights and liberties given to the American people. The suspended student was denied his rights to due process and his right to formal informant of crime committed. A liberty that every American enjoys is upon crime committed they are awarded a hearing/trial in order to promote fairness.
John Giglio was charged with passing forged money orders and sentenced to five years imprisonment. During the appeal, Giglio counsel discovered new evidence representing that the prosecutors had failed to reveal a promise made to its “key witness” that he wouldn’t be prosecuted if he testified for the government. The Court granted a certiorari to determine whether the evidence not revealed would require a retrial under the due process standards Napue v. Illinoi, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Evidence showed at trial, representatives at Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. learned that Robert Taliento, key witness and co-conspirator, was a banker teller and also had cashed several forged money orders. He confessed to providing Giglio with a customer’s bank signature card used by John Giglio to forge $2,300 in money orders.
Issue: Kent was unaware of his case's transfer of jurisdiction from the juvenile court of D.C. to the state's regular district court. Was the juvenile court's waiver of jurisdiction valid? Would the individual transferred to the adult court still have rights that were applicable in juvenile court? Did the juvenile court conduct a full investigation for Kent? Important information might have been revealed had an investigation been performed.