Supreme Court Case Of Kent V. United States

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 many significant trials of juveniles, including Kent, have dramatically shaped and

The significant landmark supreme court case of Kent v. United States involving juvenile court involves the criminal involvement of Morris A. Kent. In 1966, Kent was sixteen years old when he was detained and interrogated by police in connection to many counts of robbery, home burglaries, and rape in the District of Columbia (Kent). A woman had reported that an intruder had broke into her apartment home and stole her wallet and raped her. Fingerprints were found at the crime scene and easily traceable to Kent. Kent confessed to the crimes and released information of his involvement with several similar incidents. Kent had an earlier criminal history with the juvenile court. He was arrested at the age of fourteen for burglary and robbery, and in result he was put on probation under the guidance of his single mother. In accordance to Kent’s arrest at age sixteen, his attorney had

The violation of the eighth and fourteenth amendment were brought up. The eighth amendment protects against cruel and unusual punishments. This was said to be violated when Morris Kent was not allowed juvenile hearing and immediatelly sent to criminal courts and given sixty to ninety years in prison. The other amendment said to be violated was the fourteenth. This was violated when Kent was claimed to have not had equal protection under the court of law. This case was made on the main issue of whether there was sufficient enough facts for the juvenile court to waive jurisdiction (Gardner). This case brought looks upon the parens patriae doctrine that states the court should be of protection for this person unable of self protection and intervene as demanded (Paulsen). This forced the Supreme Court to act upon these issues and unjusts. The Supreme Court then went into trialing of the case to determine a