Juvenile Court Case Study

Placing a juvenile in a detention center early in the court process increases the risk that youths will be found to be delinquent and damage their prospects for future success. A majority of the youths that are placed in these facilities pose little or no threat to the public and essentially do not need to be there. This portion of the juvenile court process is detrimental to the future and mental aspects of a youth’s life. We desperately need to change the way that we handle the juvenile court system because we are only reinforcing the delinquent behavior that these youths have been exposed to. We need to focus on the rehabilitation and prevention efforts for these youths not the punishment aspect and until then (insert a better ending).

During In re Winship (1970), it was determined that juveniles, just like adults, are entitled to “beyond a reasonable doubt” during the adjudication process. It was also decided that “preponderance of evidence” was not enough to gain a conviction when it came to juveniles being charged with criminal offenses an adult could commit. Both In re Winship (1970) and In re Gault (1967) were designed to

357). This case was brought up with Marsha Levick in order to show one major injustice that went all the way to the supreme court that ended up creating laws so that it would never happen again. Gault’s parents were not notified that he had been arrested, no one was sworn in at the case, and there was no record of what had happened during the trial (McNamara Pg. 357). Eventually this case ended up in the Supreme Court and changed the juvenile system forever. The ruling made it so that juveniles have a constitutional right to notice of the proceedings, right to counsel, right to confront and cross-examine accusers, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to appeal a decision (McNamara Pg. 358). This case changed how the juvenile justice system functions and made it so that children today can get a more fair

The juvenile justice system is a foundation in society that is granted certain powers and responsibilities. It faces several different tasks, among the most important is maintaining order and preserving constitutional rights. When a juvenile is arrested and charged with committing a crime there are many different factors that will come in to play during the course of his arrest, trial, conviction, sentencing, and rehabilitation process. This paper examines the Juvenile Justice System’s court process in the State of New Jersey and the State of California.

Today’s juvenile court system handles most cases involving those under the age of 18-year-old. This was not always the case and the ideal of a separate court system for adults and children is only about 100 years old. When looking at the differences that set juvenile courts apart, it is important to study the history and see how it developed over time.

, I believe they Both noticed a hearing are required before the probation revocation, and the probationer should have the opportunity for representation by the counsel before a prison sentence is imposed. Petitioner Mempa pled guilty for joyriding. He was sentenced to two years’ probation on the condition that he spend 30 days in jail and the sentence be deferred. Four months later, the Spokane County prosecutor moved to have the petitioner’s probation revoked because he had been involved in a burglary during his

1. Some of the cues in deciding whether to handle a case officially or unofficially include the age of the officer, the wishes of the complainant, race/attitude/gender of the offender, and the nature of the offense. In most instances, it is up to the officer’s discretion to determine how they will handle the situation. The dangers in relying on these cues from an officer’s point of view could be deception. For example, if a young officer encounters a juvenile misbehaving they might be deceived by the teenager since they do not have much experience with them.

The juvenile offender also pled guilty in a court of law, regarding his possession of a

On November 15, 2015, I, Cpl. Lessane, along with Deputy Jordan, with the Hampton County Sheriff's Office, responded to 2427 Bamberg Highway, in the county of Hampton, regarding disturbance with neighbors. Upon arrival, Deputies made contact with the complainant, Brandy Davis, who stated her neighbor, Wanda Carroll, kids were being disrespectful. Deputies gathered the pertinent information needed to complete this report.

Larry Darnell Booker was placed on indeterminate supervised probation on November 19, 2016, after evidence was found sufficient on charges of entering a vehicle and grand larceny. Larry was also ordered to 30 days of electronic monitoring, 75 hours of community service work, a substance abuse evaluation and restitution in the amount of $550.00. Larry successfully completed the community service work, electronic monitoring and the substance abuse assessment. Larry assessment indicated substance abuse treatment was necessary and Larry completed treatment with no issues. On December 14, 2016, evidence was found sufficient for a finding of guilt on a charge resisting arrest against Larry. Larry was ordered to remain on supervision and complete

According to the Seven Circuit court’s ruling and the Supreme Court holding is that the petitioner had previously been involved in other three related felony issues. These felonies were consequently recorded towards the end of the month of November in 1995 and they include two robbery convictions and an attempt to flee law enforcement

On 05/23/2018 at approximately 2226 hours, I, Deputy A. Martinez Vazquez (117015) responded to 211 Mission Rd., Oviedo, Seminole County, Fl. In reference to a disturbance inside of the residence. While in route to the residence, I was notified that the disturbance turned physical against a mother and daughter. Before I arrived to the residence I was notified that the 15 year old female juvenile was inside of her room.

Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with a felonious crime of breaking and entering in the State of Florida. Upon his bench trial, Gideon requested a court appointed attorney. The bench trial judge denied Gideon’s request stating that under Florida’s law the provision of a court appointed attorney is limited to capital crime offenders. Gideon progressed to a jury trial and acted as his own counsel. He delivered his opening and closing arguments, as well as questioned witnesses. The jury found the defendant guilty and sentenced Gideon to five years in the state prison. While in state prison, Gideon filed a petition for habeas corpus contesting his guilty verdict. Gideon’s claim was based on the fact that the Court denied him his constitutional right to an attorney. The Florida State Supreme Court denied Gideon’s release. The United States Supreme Court was familiar with this issue because of a prior case, Betts v. Brady (1942), so The SCOTUS allowed a writ certiorari and Gideon’s case was reviewed again. The SCOTUS found that Gideon had been denied his constitutional right to a court appointed attorney and reserved his verdict.

The juvenile justice system is similar to the criminal justice system. This system is where juveniles are processed, and may be arrested after referrals for juvenile delinquency. Juvenile justice is very different in every state and can be very similar as well because every system has limited jurisdiction and that most focus on the offenders and not their offenses. Therefore, there are 51 juvenile justice systems in the United States. The United States has the juvenile justice system because children are very different than adults – in that they can be better receptive for change and also being easier to rehabilitate. Moreover, the main goal of the juvenile justice system is rehabilitation (Juvenile Law Center). The juvenile justice system is made up of police, courts, corrections, probation and parole services, as well as community-based programs to name a few (book).

Serious crimes such as murder, burglary and rape have raised questions as to whether the young offenders should face severe punitive treatment or the normal punitive measures in juvenile courts. Many would prefer the juveniles given harsh punishment in order to discourage other young people from engaging in similar activities and to serve as a lesson to these particular offenders. However, results from previous studies indicate such punitive measures were neither successful nor morally acceptable. Instead, the solutions achieved have unfairly treated the youths and compromised the society status (Kristin, page 1).