Griffin. The Court ruled that defendant Strong’s rejection to allow Mr. Griffin admission to legal counsel before obtaining confession from Mr. Griffin is violation of rule of law. The Sixth Amendment provides the right to counsel for any offense whether is petty, misdemeanor, or felony unless the right was knowingly and intelligent waived by the person. This is the right that gives rights to poor and rich the right to the assistance of counsel. Secondary, the violation to the right against self-incrimination that is secured by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment was used by the defendant Detective Strong for the use of “coercion” by intimidating and threatened the plaintiff Mr. Griffin in the order to get him confess for the child abuse case. Detective Strong told the plaintiff Mr. Griffin during the interview that if he doesn’t confess, he will put his back in the general jail where other inmates will “come down and smash [his] huts all over the floor.” This really did work for him to make the suspect confess, but it threatens the suspect and makes them confess for what they did not. It is a violation of rule of law to threaten the suspect in the order to get what we want out of them. Malloy V. Hogan, the Fifth Amendment protects a person against being convicted by his own forced testimonial communication.
The case of Miranda versus the state of Arizona started out when Ernesto Miranda was arrested. The crime committed was an armed robbery, kidnap and rape of an 18 year old girl. The victim was Lois Ann Jameson. The crime took place on March 3rd 1963 in Phoniex, Arizona. Ernesto Miranda was arrested after the brother of the victim found Miranda’s trunk. He was arrested on March 13th 1963. After being arrested he was put in a lineup and was in a voice lineup and a postitive Identification was made. After being in the interegation room for two hours, Ernesto Miranda gave a full confession of his crime. He was not made aware of his rights to have an attorney present while he was making this confession,
As a predisposition writer in a juvenile setting the probation officer will be tasked with the important process of writing a report for the judge to take into consideration. A Predisposition report consists of the client’s complete prior history. The probation officer that writes these reports is required to gather all the information that they feel will be necessary to make a proper judgment on the juvenile. Probation officers will collect information on the juveniles past history with law enforcement, family problems, mental health issues, what they client feels are their needs and wants, and numerous other issues that may arise during the meeting.
Humes has constructed an account of LA, California’s juvenile justice system and the children who pass through it in the mid-1990s (XIV). This carefully researched book chronicles the arrests of seven teenagers and their experiences both in juvenile court and while serving time. He describes the legal processes and interactions between prosecutors, public, private
The court case, Kent vs. United States took place in 1966. This case was about Morris Kent, a 16-year-old boy who had been on probation since he was fourteen. Morris has just been arrested again for three counts of home burglary, three counts of robbery, and two counts of rape in the state of Washington. Because of the seriousness of his charges and the fact that he had been in court before, prosecutors attempted to have Morris tried in adult court. Because of this, Kent's lawyer told the judge that he had a mental illness while committing these crimes, he wanted Morris to stay in juvenile court, where the penalties would be much less severe. 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
The face of American crime has evolved from adults to the not so innocent faces of adolescence. In today’s society, it is not uncommon for people to fear just walking into public places because they don’t know what horrendous actions may occur due to the indifferent, disrespectful actions of some of America’s youth. Parents are often hesitant to send their children to school because they feel that they cannot trust their child’s fellow classmates. This lack of trust and apprehension was evident in Wisconsin, where two thirteen year old girls attempted to murder one of their fellow classmates. Their reasoning was that they were trying to imitate a fictional character that they saw on the internet. These two young girls were tried as adults
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. These three ethical issues that are rising in the juvenile justice system will be further examined.
Due to Kent at the time being on probation, his past criminal history and the crimes that he was arrested for the right way to handle the charges would be through being charged as an adult. In cases like these with juveniles, it is best if the judge waives the case, so that it can be taken to a higher court. Taking a juvenile's case to be tried as an adult can be a good thing because there are times where the juveniles don't get the proper punishment for the crimes they've committed. I believe that when it comes to juveniles and they commit a severe crime they need to be punished just as if they were an adult. Juveniles don’t always get the proper charges to the fact they are under the age of 18. 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
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.
Juveniles should be tried as adults due to being aware of their crimes and having an intention to kill, however, brain development and maturity can play a role into the reason why teens kill. With being tried as an adult juveniles should be granted the opportunity of freedom pending on their rehabilitation status and if requirements are not met, convicts will have to complete the remainder of their sentence.
The intended scope of the apology is also a matter of dispute. The requested apology is dependent in part on Coach Snow 's intent in asking for it. The Coach 's purpose in making these statements to Brian is not easily ascertained and requires inferences drawn from the Coach 's behavior throughout the meeting and the broader controversy.
On October 14, 2015, I went to the Arizona Superior Court at Downtown Phoenix. I went to the room 503 in the Central Court Building, which is a family court. The judge that was in the room is Paul J McMurdie. He begin hearing at 1:30 P.M. and there are a 5 hearing during the day that I visited. One of the case that he hearing is FC2010-006759, Hall vs. Gollins. It is a case about child support, which one side of the parent owe the money and did not pay for the child support. But, by the time that he call out for hearing, Sandra Alicia Michelle Gollins did not present. So the judge issue an child support arrest warrant to her. The hearing end around 2:17 P.M. and me and my friend have a chance to talk with judge McMurdie. We ask him to explain about the case and the process
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. He claimed that the arresting officer never told the teen what he was being
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,
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. If a juvenile is defined as a person under the age of eighteen can we justify trying them in as an adult? Is convicting juveniles as adults a better solution?