Juvenile Criminal Cases

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.

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.

A New Jersey high school teacher, discovered a fourteen year old freshman student (Tracy Lois Odem) and her acquaintance smoking cigarettes in the restroom. Which, is a violation of school policy taken to the principle's office. The Assistant Vice Principal questioned the student about her smoking the cigarettes. With her response, claiming that she did not smoke the cigarettes. Demanding to see her purse in attempt to find cigarettes, rolling paper which, can be used to smoke marijuana. Further into the search, he found a small plastic bag containing marijuana, a pipe, money, and a piece of paper with names of students who owed Tracy Lois Odem money. Which, implicated T.l.O was dealing in marijuana. The school administrator contacted the police

The first case I chose was Kent v. United States (1966). This case was about a 16 year old boy named Morris Kent Jr. Young Mr. Kent who was involved in a lot of incidents which involved robberies and rape was questioned by the police of his connection with a lady who robbed and raped in her apartment where his fingerprints were found. Kent admitted to some of the involvement. When he went to juvenile court where they waived jurisdiction and he would be tried as an adult. Kent was charged in a district court where a jury found him guilty and sentenced him to thirty to ninety years in prison. Kent's attorney petitioned the court and the U.S. court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the decision although the juvenile court judge

If a plea agreement is not reached, the case may go to an Adjudication Hearing (also called Fact-finding. All parties to the case, including the prosecution witnesses and defense witnesses, will be subpoenaed (summoned) to testify before a Judge. Witnesses may be excluded from the courtroom until they are finished testifying (Clallam County, 2011). The argument for this rule is to ensure that a witness is not influenced by the testimony of another witness. If you are a victim, you have the right to be present throughout the hearing. Since there are no jury trials in juvenile court, the Judge will determine whether or not the juvenile is innocent or guilty of committing a delinquent act after hearing the facts of the case. At the Adjudication Hearing, the prosecution and the defense may make opening statements to the Judge to explain the case. The Juvenile Prosecutor then presents the case against the juvenile respondent. It is the responsibility of the State to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that a delinquent act was committed and the juvenile respondent is guilty of committing the act (Clallam County, 2012). To meet this burden of proof, the Juvenile Prosecutor presents evidence and calls witnesses to testify. Witnesses are required to testify under oath and may be cross-examined by the juvenile's defense attorney.

onathan Romero April 18, 2017 Juveniles should be tried as an adult in the court of law at the age of 18 because he or she has full reasoning skills and experience due to brain development, and life experience of their childhood life. Mike Tikkanen explains, "More than 200,000 individuals under the age of 18 are prosecuted in criminal court each year. " These youths can be as young as 17, without a full understanding of what is happening. The Judges and the jury come with the hard decision of saying whether the outcome is a penalty as an adult or a juvenile institution. This is wrong within the court system to be doing this, since sometimes the person is mentally handicapped, and the way someone is being tried should be changed very soon.

The evaluation of success for the purpose of justice is worth seeing the adolescent’s age to be no longer considered a juvenile. Has society dealt with the crime correctly or does the cost for said decision outweigh the punishment the juvenile deserves? Is this the right direction? The struggling issue the legal system is navigating through leads into a decision pointing the said juvenile in the right direction by guidance and education or destroying the juvenile by matching a harsher punishment to a particular crime. In order to make the appropriate decision, a list of “pros” and “cons” would be able to offer some assistance. The “pro” side for a juvenile court system is direction and guidance. This court system sees the lack of maturity and discretion of this youth. This should give cause of seeing the youth as “different” than an adult and should be held less blameworthy for the crime committed. This court’s main objective is to handle the youth through policed courses and correctional involvement for the purpose of rehabilitation. The court focuses on the “age” instead of the “crime.” Transferring to the adult courts, the purpose is to bring harsher sentences for the crime committed as well as the slim chance of “getting off” the hook by attending counseling or other step-process program. Adult courts also see the victims and their families need relief for the crime committed against them. Adult courts do offer the juvenile the majority

The necessity for development of a separate court system designed for punishing juvenile offenders came about with the idea that juveniles are “less culpable” than adult offenders, and therefore more adaptable to rehabilitation from their delinquent misbehavior. Building on this idea, juvenile court was established to offer intervention, rehabilitation, and protective supervision for young offenders, unlike the general idea of criminal courts aimed at punishing, incapacitating, and generating retribution. (Bishop & Frazier, 1991)

The Youth Criminal Justice Act is clearly an effective bill. Since the introduction of YCJA, crime for youth has been decreasing at a rapid rate. (Show graph) In this graph you can see that since the start of the bill (which was introduced in 2003) there has been a huge dip in “Total youth court cases”. Following that statistic the other categories have notably been decrease along with it. How do they achieve this? The YCJA guides youth. Instead of just tossing them like they are some criminal that serve their time and head off, the bill provides things like counselling and community service to teach them their wrong doing and send them off as useful citizens that's shouldn't be coming in and out of prison constantly. Witout a doubt this would

In the first place, exchange to grown-up court modifies the legitimate procedure by which a minor is attempted. Criminal court depends on an antagonistic model, while juvenile court is based, from a certain perspective, on a more agreeable model. This distinction in the atmospheres of adolescent versus grown-up courts is noteworthy in light of the fact that it is misty at what age people have adequate comprehension of the consequences of the antagonistic procedure and the diverse personal stakes of prosecutors, resistance lawyers, and judges. Youthful litigants might just not have what it takes- - by the guidelines set up in the Constitution- - to be ready to guard themselves in criminal court. Second, the lawful gauges connected in grown-up and adolescent courts are distinctive. For instance, skill to stand trial is assumed among grown-up respondents unless they experience the ill effects of a genuine maladjustment or significant mental impediment. We don't know whether the assumption of skill holds for adolescents, who, even without mental hindrance or dysfunctional behavior, may need adequate fitness to take an interest in the adjudicative procedure. (Social Issues

A juvenile offender has committed the crime of Especially Aggravated Robbery. The juvenile court has petitioned to have the case transferred to adult court; the petition is granted. While the juvenile offender is awaiting trial, they become of adult age. The juvenile is now an adult and is released on bond to their mother. While out on bond the defendant commits several aggravated robberies and unfortunately a victim is killed. The defendant goes on the run for a few months but is later located by the U.S. Marshalls. When the defendant is brought back to court to face their previous charge of especially aggravated robbery, the judge is made aware of the defendant’s pending charges.

It is the very nature of the criminal justice system to hold those accountable for their actions. In the adult courts the purpos is to be judged by a jury of our peers and held accountable for crimes committed. There must be consequences faced for criminal actions. The adult and juvenile courts handle the proceedings quite differently. The adult court has a defendant whom appears for a bail hearing. The defendant than is sent to trial in front of a jury of his peers, based

The youth will enter a plea agreement. Normally a plea agreement depends solely on the juvenile’s willingness to follow the set out conditions. Such as a part of the plea agreement could be that the juvenile could have to obey curfews, pay the victim for damages or attend counseling. If there is not plea agreement then the judge could divert the case, which means, the judge keeps jurisdiction over the case while the child goes through a recommended program like, counseling or community service. If the child doesn’t complete the program the court could bring back formal charges. If the case is severe then the case will go to trial, in a juvenile case it is call an adjudicatory hearing. Just like an adult criminal trial, both sides will present their evidence and argue the case. Most states the cases are only heard by a judge not by a jury. If the judge determines the youth is delinquent or guilt, then a probation officer will evaluate the child. The judge will then decide the best course of punishment or rehabilitation, including, counseling, locked up in a juvenile detention facility, pay back the victim or probation. The judge could also order the child to return to court periodically to see if the child’s behavior is

There are many similarities and differences between the adult and juvenile justice systems. Although juvenile crimes have increased in violence and intensity in the last decade, there is still enough difference between the two legal proceedings, and the behaviors themselves, to keep the systems separated. There is room for changes in each structure. However, we cannot treat/punish juvenile offenders the way we do adult offenders, and vice versa. This much we know. So we have to find a way to merge between the two. And, let’s face it; our juveniles are more important to us in the justice system. They are the group at they

There are many similarities and differences in the juvenile and adult justice systems. When a juvenile is arrested and charged with a crime there are many factors that play a role out during the course of an arrest, trail, conviction and sentencing. Years ago all criminals were tried as adults and there was no distinction made between adult and juvenile. Currently, the law has come to realize the need to categorize the two as they are two different populations with very different physical and psychological needs needs. According to Bartol, “juveniles, like adults, also may be provided with intermediate sanctions, which are less restrictive than residential placement but more restrictive than the standard probation under which the juvenile remains in his or her own home with conditions attached” (Bartol, 2011) very similar to adult offenders.