Juvenile Court Essay

D. (2002). Three strikes and you're in (for life): An analysis of the California three strikes laws as applied to convictions for misdemeanor conduct. Thomas Jefferson Law Review, 24(2), 277-298 This article analyzes California’s Three Strikes and how it applies to petty theft cases, particularly those that have been overturned by the appeal courts, particularly the Ninth Circuit. The article hypothesizes that the legal application of California’s Three Strikes Laws to petty theft cases is an application that the voters never contemplated upon when passing the law. The research methods used in the article is also qualitative whereby the author reviews and analyzes the California Three Strikes Law as it was passed, how the federal court takes over a state case and the application of the law in a particular case.

This is the first happenings of a juvenile court system. The reason why this was happening was because of the violence going on among juveniles. Juveniles were becoming extremely violent, and aggressive. The goal among this first court and the rest of the juvenile justice from then on was to deter juvenile delinquents. One of the way of doing this through the juvenile court was to have a due process

Arizona, Were his rights violated? It is obvious that Ernesto 's rights were not clear to him. Before his interrogation, Miranda was unaware of his rights and when he made his confession, they were entirely thrown out. In 1965, the court agreed to heir his case. Miranda 's case won 5-4 and a statement was made.

The officer’s failure to notify the defendant of his right to an attorney at law; this violated his constitutional rights. According to the officers, they were aware that they did not notify him of his rights. However, Miranda 384 U.S. 436 (1966) was found guilty in a court of law regardless; this was due to the written statement he had written and signed. The decision of the court was that Miranda was guilty, as a result he was sentenced to 20 to 30 years incarceration on each count.

It clearly violates the eighth amendment that states, “[E]xcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." (Eighth Amendment.) The segment of ‘cruel’ refers to a punishment that is brutal and inflicts severe pain of the suspect, whilst ‘unusual’ implies that the punishment is generally not associated with the crime that has been presumably been committed. The supreme court of Georgia explained, in a five to four ruling, that “capital sentencing based on the unguided discretion of juries offends the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause of the Eighth Amendment” due to the fact that it permits “juries to impose the distinctively profound sentence of death on some convicted defendants while other juries impose the far different sentence of life imprisonment on large numbers of similarly situated defendants convicted of exactly the same crime.” (Furman v.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the United States Supreme Court issued a number of decisions that expanded the rights of children in juvenile court proceedings. The Court began extending due process rights to juveniles in Kent v. United States. The Court no longer accepted the premise that children should not have constitutional rights because of the special nature of the juvenile court. According to the Kent Court, "the child receives the worst of both worlds: that he or she gets neither the protections given to adults nor the solicitous care and regenerative treatment postulated for children" "(Kent v. United States 383 U.S. 541 (1966)", 2015, para 35). Although Kent involved no specific constitutional issues, the Court began focusing

He later appealed his case up the court system and eventually to the Supreme Court on the grounds that, due to such actions, he had been held illegally. The verdict in Betts v. Brady was that indigent defendants in non-capital state cases were only obligated to be provided with counsel in special

Therefore, not trying juveniles as adults will or possibly can lead them to committing other minor or major crimes. Two juveniles who have been tried as an adult would be Nathaniel Brazill who killed his teacher at the age of 13. Brazill got his GED and his law & paralegal certifications in jail. Similarly, Greg Ousley who killed his parents at the age of 14 is serving 60 years behind bars. According to Anderson, he is a model inmate, he is trustworthy behaving himself in prison and getting his education behind bars; got his bachelor's degree in liberal arts.

A substantial part of this was to target treatment for the adolescents rather than punishment. One of the first court cases ruled by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Commonwealth V. Fischer in 1905, backed up this primary goal. This case resulted in the long discussion of whether the judge of the trial should have conducted a jury about if the defendant had only made a mistake about knowing if he had consent, or if he indeed raped a girl . In a consequential victory, the Supreme Court upheld Fischer’s conviction and decline to make a special punishment as to

illiteracy, mental illness etc. These circumstances, outlined in an earlier supreme court case Betts v. Brady, stated the state was not required to appoint counsel to the defendant. Unless there were special circumstances or it is a capital offense. Fortunately for Gideon after he appealed to the Supreme Court through a Writ of Habeas Corpus with a petition for Certiorari, a higher court reviews the decision of a lower one. This ruling overturned and today all defendants are granted counsel in all cases except for minor offenses, such as traffic tickets.

The Impact of Miranda V. Arizona When the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda’s confession during trial because the police had failed to inform the suspect of his right to have an attorney present and that he did not have to incriminate himself, the impact the ruling would have on the entire U.S. judicial system was only beginning to become clear. The court said that police are compelled by the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth and Sixth Amendments to make sure suspects know they are not compelled to be a witness against him or herself, and that they have a right to have a lawyer present during questioning (McBride, 2006). The Court further held that ‘without proper safeguards the process of in-custody interrogation of persons suspected or accused of crime contains inherently compelling pressures