Fare V. Michael C. Case Brief

This case is one that changed the way the United States Police forces will work forever. Every human in the world has natural born rights. Even people who have been arrested have rights, ‘The rights of the accused’. These rights are the main point of this court case.

It has been one hundred years since the creation of the juvenile court in the United States. The court and the juvenile justice system has made some positive changes in the lives of millions of young people lives over the course or those years, within the last thirteen years there has been some daunting challenges in the system.

Beginning in the 1960s, the US Supreme Court decided on a succession of landmark cases that histrionically altered the processes and all around atmosphere of the Juvenile Justice System in America. One case in particular that played a major role in the Juvenile field is Kent vs. US (383 US. 541 [1966]). The landmark case Kent vs. United States, observed as the first chief juvenile rights case in our history. This important case established the collective standards that entitled juveniles the right to waivers and preliminary hearings, which ensured due process was served. This would ultimately decide if the court would shift Kent into adult jurisdiction or allow him to remain in the juvenile system.

In my paper to follow I intend to better educate and provide examples and different situations dealing with the Fourth Amendment in criminal procedures.

Michael Brown in Ferguson, Eric Garner in Staten Island, Tamir Rice in Cleveland, Walter Scott in North Charleston and, most recently, Freddie Gray in Baltimore have dominated the headlines this entire school year. These men and their stories provide the basis for claims of racially discriminatory treatment of African Americans at the hands of the police. It is true that each of the stories surrounding these men is different, but the one unifying theme is that police around the country are interpreting our Constitutional rights in a way that is insufficient to protect African Americans and the population in general. This paper will explore one Constitutional right— the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizures--and examine how one Supreme Court decision that narrowed the scope of the 4th Amendment and unintentionally created a mechanism by which the rights of citizens could be unfairly impeded by police.

This case is about a 16-1/2 year old by the name of Michael and whether or not his Fifth Amendment rights were violated during his interrogation by the police; Michael was suspected of murdering Robert Younger in January 1976. Michael has had his fair share of the court system; he has been in and out of trouble since the age of 12 due to burglary and snatching purses. He had served some time in youth camp and he was currently being watched by probation authorities full-time. The reason why Michael was taken into custody almost a month later was because someone fitting his description was seen near Robert’s home and a truck registered to his mother was nearby. He was told why he was there, his Miranda rights were read to him and it is believed that he fully understood what was going on. The officers began asking him questions regarding the murder without the presence of his attorney, probation officer, or parents. I do not believe that this was right due to the fact that he was under age. Even though he may have committed the crime and was guilty, I believe someone should have been there with him (www.betheluniversityonline.net).

Terry v. Ohio was a pivotal case for the Fourth Amendment and for the citizens of the United States of America. As referenced by the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, in nineteen sixty three an off duty detective in Cleveland, Ohio stopped and frisked two African American men and one white man based on a ‘reasonable suspicion that the men were about to commit a crime’ (ACLUOhio, 2014). The ruling of this case has set in motion the gross abuse of stop and frisks in minority communities and among minority races in the twenty-first century; ultimately racial profiling in a post-racial era.

The last fifty years of American law have changed drastically due to numerous “landmark” court cases. For those who have studied these landmark cases, Miranda v. Arizona is one of the most crucial of these cases. Until the Miranda v. Arizona trial of 1966, when a person was arrested, they were not given a fair awareness of their rights as a citizen, which often times resulted in the self incrimination or unknowingly admitting to guilt (McBride). The Miranda decision provided a constitutional and reasonable way of allowing the suspect to fully embrace their fifth and sixth amendment rights without any form of admission of guilt.

“In two short decades, between 1980 and 2000, the number of people incarcerated in our nation’s prisons and jails soared from roughly 300,000 to more than 2 million. By the end of 2007, more than 7 million Americans–or one in every 31 adults–were behind bars, on probation, or on parole.” (Alexander 60) Today we are surrounded by the question, whether the law enforcement’s perception of the Fourth Amendment is corrupted allowing ethnic profiling. Although there are a variety of beneficial measures in the Fourth Amendment, there are plenty of aspects that justice is truly blind, lacking equal protection for all backgrounds. By displaying a prior inequity case of the Terry V. Ohio incident, the ramification of racial profiling and the steps that can be taken in order to propose a balanced, and secured proposition promising one’s freedom.

My research was conducted and compiled to present information on the Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio. The Mapp v. Ohio case was brought before the Supreme court in the year 1961 and was and still is considered a landmark supreme court case in dealing with Civil Liberties and criminal Procedure. The case itself deals with the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence in criminal proceedings, but I feel the case addressed a more deeply rooted problem. A problem where american ideals of freedom and liberty are pitted against a changing social relationship with law enforcement, which I will discuss

I chose to write about the process of the pretrial or “intake” phase because it has not been determined by the Supreme Court as critical in juvenile proceedings. Consequently juveniles do not have the right to be represented by counsel during this meeting and if they chose to participate, any statements made to the probation officer during the conference are to be solely admissible for a placement decision, not for prosecution or adult criminal court. In this paper I will reflect and analyze some of the cases detailed in the chapter that discuss whether or not statements made during intake can be used against a juvenile who has no right to counsel during this time.

The Gagnon v. Scarpelli case established additional constitutional protections for probation and parole hearings by addressing the right to counsel (O’Leary & Hanrahan, 1978). The Supreme Court reviewed Morrissey v. Brewer in their consideration of the Gagnon v. Scarpelli case, and the justices determined probation and parole revocation hearing should follow the same judicial procedures (O’Leary & Hanrahan, 1978). Therefore, since Scarpelli did not receive a hearing for the revocation of his probation, the Supreme Court stated that Scarpelli’s Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process were violated citing the Morrissey v. Brewer precedent (Florida State University Law Review, 2014). Furthermore, the decision concerning a probationer or parolee’s

The juvenile justice system is imperfect, at best, and part of this stems from the fact that juvenile justice, as a specific, discrete category of crime and punishment is still a relatively recent phenomenon. In fact, the notion of childhood and adolescence as distinct phases of human development is a novel idea that did not truly emerge until the twentieth century, so it is only natural that some elements of the juvenile justice system seem to have been made up they went along. Now, however, after substantial research into juvenile delinquency, it causes, and potential solutions, a much clearer picture of the phenomenon is emerging that will allow parents, teachers, legislators, and law enforcement officials to better reduce juvenile delinquency without imposing unnecessarily harsh restrictions of juveniles. By examining the history of the juvenile justice system alongside more recent research into juvenile delinquency, it will be possible to see how the most effective treatments going forward will likely focus on reducing risk before delinquency occurs and rehabilitating juveniles already in the justice system, as opposed to more punitive measures that mark juveniles as a criminal and thus hinder them for the rest of their lives.

This paper will discuss the history of the juvenile justice system and how it has come to be what it is today. When a juvenile offender commits a crime and is sentenced to jail or reform school, the offender goes to a separate jail or reforming place than an adult. It hasn’t always been this way. Until the early 1800’s juveniles were tried just like everyone else. Today, that is not the case. This paper will explain the reforms that have taken place within the criminal justice system that developed the juvenile justice system.

The juvenile justice system was founded on the belief that children are different from adults; therefore, the justice system and corrections sanctions for juveniles should acknowledge the differences. “Rising juvenile crime rates during the 1970s and 1980s spurred state legislatures across the country to exclude or transfer a significant share of offenders under the age of eighteen to the jurisdiction of the criminal court” (Fagan, 2008). The acknowledgement of these differences should be the bases for a proper juvenile justice system. The examination of the juvenile justice’s systems history, trends, and causation theories will provide an insight into the future of the juvenile justice system.