Juvenile Court Case: Kent Vs. United States

The Supreme Court of the United States of America in 2012 ruled that juveniles couldn’t be tried as juveniles and be sentenced to life without the possibility of bail, no matter how harsh the nature of the crime committed. Justice Elena Kagan argues that juveniles who commit crimes typically have a rough upbringing or unfortunate circumstances which cannot be controlled by the juvenile. She argues that if they are serving a life in prison without a chance of parole, it causes damage to them psychologically due to the lack of experiences. They will miss the most important moments in life that define who they are as an individual. Elena Kagan thought to believe that juveniles and their cases should be going to court with the consideration of age, immaturity, impetuosity, and behavioral circumstances. Approximately 2,500 juveniles have been charged with life in prison without the possibility of parole as adults before the Supreme Court ruling in 2012.

Christopher Simmons was a seventeen year old juvenile from Missouri whom in 1993 along with two of his friends, Charles Benjamin and John Tessmer, planned to rob and murder Shirley Crook in her home (Roper v. Simmons, 2004). On the night the crime was to be committed, Tessmer pulled out of the plan, and Simmons and Benjamin would continue on as planned. The two broke into the Ms. Crook’s home, robbed her, tied her up, covered up her eyes, then drove her to a state park and threw her off a bridge. During the trial, evidence, videotaped reenactment and testimony outlining the premeditated plan, allowed for the jury to easily convict Simmons of the crime. Even though Simmons had no previous criminal record and was a minor at the time the crime was committed,

At the age of 19, Gregory Parsons life took a dramatic turn by a shocking miscarriage of justice. On February 15, 1994, he was convicted in Newfoundland, of the second-degree murder of his mother Catherine Carroll, and was sentenced to life in prison with no chsnce of parole for 15 years. Parsons’ conviction was based on circumstantial evidence, and his case was closed by the Crown prosecutor just by simply asking the jury,”If Greg Parsons didn’t cause his mother’s death[,] who did?”

Gerald Rosenberg begins his book by posing the questions he will attempt to answer for the reader throughout the rest of the text: Under what conditions do courts produce political and social change? And how effective have the courts been in producing social change under such past decisions as Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Education? He then works to define some of the principles and view points 'currently' held about the US Supreme court system.

The trial of the Scottsboro boys was a trial that was the cause of two white women accusing nine black men of raping them. Their appeals, retrials, and legal proceedings attracted the attention of the nation and produced to Supreme Court rulings in their favor. The Scottsboro boys trial demonstrates that nonconformity to unjust practices can lead to justice for all people because their trial triggered The Supreme Court ruling that had a major impact on the American system of laws for the right to adequate counsel, the ruling for the right to not be excluded from a jury based on race, and still has a continuing effect in our own time which affirms the principle of equal protection under the law. Their case not only saved them from the death sentence but also started up debate about equal protection under the law such as in the first Supreme Court ruling.

The case Furman v Georgia made it all the to the supreme court because it would affect the way the whole country delivered punishment. Although it surprised many people that it made it that far because most people were for capital punishment. Michael Meltsner said,”Georgia was a shock. Before LDF's anti-capital punishment campaign, there had been no successful court challenge of the death penalty — even when it had been handed down in a blatantly racist or totally arbitrary manner” (www.michealmeltsner.com/interview.html).

Before taking a look at this case, think about the following questions. Do students have the same rights under the 4th amendment as adults?, What are students’ rights while being searched on school grounds?, and What guidelines do administrators and teachers need to follow as a result of New Jersey v. T.L.O? The case of New Jersey vs T.L.O involved two freshmen high schoolers who were caught using narcotics in the restroom by a teacher. The teacher took the students to the principal who then asked the students about the incident. The principal tried to make them confess to possessing marijuana but only one of the two girls came out as guilty and took the consequences. The other girl, T.L.O, however decided to plead herself as being innocent of any such crime.

The case I will be concentrating on is Tomcik vs. Ohio Dep’t of Rehabilitation and Correction in which Tomcik was imprisoned under the custody of Department of Rehabilitation and correction, based on the Legal and Ethical Issues for Health Professionals book. The problem stimulated from continuous negligence from nurses and doctors at the department, which initially was when Tomcik received a physical evaluation, included the breast examination by Dr. Evans who stated that the examination was cursory and lasted only a few seconds, which means that not much attention was presented regarding the patient and his job. The next day Tomcik noticed a lump as being about the size of a pea in her right breast, however it was not reported by Dr. Evans.

Earl versus the Board of Education was a Supreme Court case in 2002 where high school students and their parents disliked the action of The Student Activities Drug Testing Policy taking place in an Oklahoma School District. This policy required all middle and high school students who wanted to participate in any extracurricular activity like athletics, to take a mandatory urinary test for drugs before taking part in that activity. However, in this situation in Tecumseh, Oklahoma, the testing was only done for athletics. This was done by the Oklahoma Secondary Schools Activities Association (OSSAA). Specifically two Tecumseh High School students and their parents complained and brought suit, they believed this practice violated

The court case Roper v. Simmons was a case that questioned whether or not the execution of a juvenile violated the Constitution. This case began in 2002 and was appealed and decided in 2005. This was a Missouri case that involved Christopher Simmons, who at the time was only seventeen years old. As a punishment for a crime that he committed, Simmons was given the death penalty. Simmons tried many times to appeal his case and avoid being executed. His appeal was granted after the supreme court made a decision regarding the case Atkins v. Virginia. The case Atkins v. Virginia stated that the execution of people who suffer from mental retardation is not only a violation of the 8th and 14th amendments but is also unconstitutional. The Supreme

The District of Columbia courts needs to waive and remit before he is able to be tried. At this time there was a motion filed to have him receive the case waived. The judge filed for a ‘full investigation’, which lead to Kent’s case being waived from the juvenile courts. He was then tried in the District Court. The jury found Kent guilty of six counts of housebreaking and robbery. The verdict was not found to be guilty with the counts of rape due to reason of insanity. Morris Kent was sentenced 30 to 90 years in prison and also some time in Saint Elizabeth's Hospital. Kent’s lawyer believed that the investigation was not thoroughly completed and that the indictment should be dismissed. Due to the findings of Kent’s mental issues they concluded that the waive was inappropriate. He said that Kent was denied his constitutional rights due to the fact he was a minor. It wasn't until March 21st, 1966 a decision on the case was made. By the time there was a decision made on the case, Morris Kent was already 21 and the waiver was ruled to be invalid. The case went back to the courts for more clearance on the

In this case Kyllo v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled against the vitric of the lower courts on a 5 to 4 vote. The questions that need to be answered in this case, in my opinion serve a bigger purpose then the case at hand. The case itself is about a man named Danny Kyllo who was growing marijuana plants inside his home illegally. An officer of the U.S Interior Department got a tip that this man was illegally growing plants inside his home and went to investigate this. Obviously a tip from an unknown is not enough information to get a warrant to search the man’s property. So agent Elliot choose to observe his house from the outside and use a thermal imaging device which takes a picture of the home and the homes in the neighborhood to see how much heat is home is radiating compared to the homes around him. This excess heat from his home could help

The court system is made up of many operational parts that all work together to achieve an overall goal. For my courtroom observation I have chosen the State of Florida v Casey Marie Anthony trial. This trail took place on the 23rd floor of the Orange county courtroom in Florida which seats about 50 people. Casey Marie Anthony (the defendant) is on trial for the death of her two-year-old daughter Caylee Marie Anthony. She is being tried for first degree murder, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child, and four counts of providing false information to police. Around two months after being indicted on those charge’s police found Caylee Anthony body in a wooded area near her mother’s home.

Green v. New Kent County was an important court case from 1968 dealing with desegregation in schools. Calvin Green convinced the court to establish the laws from Brown v. Board of Ed into action, giving better opportunities to all students of all races.

Gideon v. Wainwright was a very important case for the Supreme Court; it guaranteed the same kind of fair trial in state courts as was expected in federal courts. In 1961 Clarence Gideon was denied an attorney in a state court and he appealed to the Supreme Court arguing this was violating his constitutional right to a fair trial. This was going against a previous decision by a Federal Court of Appeals in 1941. The Supreme Court accepted Gideon's petition and reviewed the decision of the Court of Appeals. In 1963 the Supreme Court decided in favor of Gideon and overruled the previous decision changing the precedent for all state courts. The decision stated that the sixth amendment applied to states and now we are (Krajicek, Clarence Gideon