New York Family Court Case: Winship V.

In re Gault¹ stems from a case involving a boy named Gerald Gault who at the time of incident was a 15-year-old boy from Arizona who was charged with making obscene telephone calls to a neighbor, Mrs. Cook. Gerald Gault was sent to a detention facility without notifying his parents, questioned by a Probation officer without having an attorney or parent present, and after a short hearing, was found to be delinquent and sent to the state “industrial school” until he turned 21. After Gault was sentenced, his parents filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the state courts to challenge the constitutionality of the Arizona Juvenile Code and the procedures used in their son’s case. The petition was dismissed by both the Superior Court of Arizona and the Arizona Supreme Court. The Gault’s not satisfied with either court’s decision sought relief in the United States Supreme Court. Upon review, the Court agreed to hear the case to determine the procedural due process rights of a juvenile criminal defendant².

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

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.

With the escalation of murders and rapes committed by minors as seen in recent years the people are looking for the right answer. Public concern over the effectiveness of the juvenile courts when dealing with these offenders has brought about change in the justice system. (Stolba, 2001). The courts now, are quicker to transfer a juveniles’ case to adult court than when the juvenile system was first formed. There stands a conflict of interests within the two court systems. Juvenile courts are to protect the rights of youths determined incapable of adult decisions. The primary concern is that the youth be rehabilitated and not become a repeat offender. Thus, protecting the child from incarceration with adult criminals and any possible future victims. The concerns of the adult court is to make sure the convicted offender pays for their crime and that the victim gets justice. Rehabilitation is not a primary concer of the adult justice system.

The Juvenile Justice System was established in 1899 when the first documented court hearing took place in Cook County, Illinois. This type of court system was designed to discipline, treat, and rehabilitate children under the legal age of eighteen, who are caught and/or convicted of committing crimes against society. Since its creation, many have argued for and against having two separate but parallel court systems. This essay will discuss the basic arguments in favor of and in opposition to the retention of the juvenile justice 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 the case of Fare v. Michael C., the police arrested the sixteen-year-old Michael C. under the suspicion of murder, and he was transported to the police station for a custodial interrogation (Elrod & Ryder, 2014). Furthermore, before the interrogation began Michael C. was advised of his Miranda Rights, and Michael C. specifically asked to consult his probation officer, and not a lawyer (Elrod & Ryder, 2014). Consequently, the police refused to allow Michael C. to speak with his state probation officer, and they continued to question him about the murder (Henry-Mays, 2007). Michael C. continued to answer the investigator’s questions and he drew sketches, which ultimately implicated him in the murder (Henry-Mays, 2007). Now that we understand the general facts of the case, let us examine the key facts and issues, which lead to the Supreme Court’s decision.

The book “No Matter How Loud I Shout” written by Edward Humes, looks at numerous major conflicts within the juvenile court system. There is a need for the juvenile system to rehabilitate the children away from their lives of crime, but it also needs to protect the public from the most violent and dangerous of its juveniles, causing one primary conflict. Further conflict arises with how the court is able to administer proper treatment or punishment and the rights of the child too due process. The final key issue is between those that call for a complete overhaul of the system, and the others who think it should just be taken apart. On both sides there is strong reasoning that supports each of their views, causing a lot of debate about the

As a contrast, there are many differences between the adult and juvenile justice system. These differences consist of the right to a jury, the right to post bail, leniency of evidence, different court proceedings, the right to a public trial, and rehabilitation efforts. As for the purpose of this paper, we will dissect the differences of the two systems. Many appeals have been filed under the notion that a right to a jury should be upheld for juvenile offenders. The courts have voted against this action time and time again. These appeals are made on the assumption that, as noted earlier, adult crimes should be tried as adult crimes. However, the court rules on this matter while keeping the rehabilitation efforts of the juvenile courts in mind, as opposed to the more punitive measures. Their desire to see kids treated as kids are defined with their upholding of the law, and pushing rehabilitation to its max. But should rehabilitation be the prime focus when the act is of adult capacity; even in a child’s body? I do not think so. What are the percentages of rehabilitation success with adults for committed capital offenses? How are they going to differ when a child partakes in them? I think there is a

Throughout one’s life many are prone to being in one of America’s many courtrooms at least once in their life. Whether it is for a parking ticket, a petty larceny charge, or simply jury duty most citizens have been in a courtroom once or twice. However, it is rare that one knows the many steps and processes that take place when a crime has been convicted. There is an excess number of elements that are introduced and just to name a few it all starts with the occurrence of the crime, then follows the arrest, proceeded by an arraignment, bail hearing and any more steps before finally reaching the final verdict that lands one with guilt or innocence (Neubrauer, Fadella 2013). Based on the laws in place by the United States and the Constitution one must be able to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is doubt at all in the jurors minds, they cannot convict the individual of being guilty and lately this has created a lot of controversy in the United States with many cases being tried. For example, the Casey Anthony case that took place in Florida was one of the most recent states where Common Law and the Constitution were unable to be reconcilable to prove one’s guilt.

The legal standard applied for competency in both juveniles and adults is defined by the U.S Supreme Court in Dusky v. U.S., 402 (Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 1960), and affirmed in Godinez v. Moran (Godinez v. Moran, 113 St. Ct. 2680, 1993). Those standards include; “1). Sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding, 2). A rational as well as factual understanding of proceedings against him/her; and are a requirement applied under due process obligations. The application of these standards in practice require the juvenile to understand and appreciate the charges, potential pleas, and their consequences; understand and appreciate the roles of the participants in the trial process; the ability to understand communications from counsel and to have the ability to meaningfully communicate with counsel to aid in developing a defense; the ability to understand, appreciate, and make decisions about the waiver of important rights (ex. Miranda rights), especially decisions about pleading and plea agreements; and the ability to testify at trial if needed and are applied through out the legal process (Grisso, 2005, p. 7).” The standard to which juveniles are assessed in their abilities to meet these standards is still

According to Caldwell (1961) the juvenile justice system is based on the principle that youth are developmentally and fundamentally different from adults. According to Mack (1909) the focus of the juvenile justice system has shifted from “was the crime committed” to “why did the child commit the crime”, “how can we help the child”. When performing as it is designed and up to the initial intentions, the juvenile court balances rehabilitation (treatment) of the offender with suitable sanctions when necessary such as incarceration. According to Griffin (2008) in some cases juveniles may be required to be “transferred” to adult court. In this paper I am going to discuss the three primary mechanisms of waiver to adult court: judicial waiver

Our current juvenile court system began in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The ultimate goal of having a separate court system for juveniles is to rehabilitate young offenders rather than punish them. The court also hopes to deter young offenders from preforming further delinquent behavior. Unlike the adult court system, juveniles do not have the right to a public trial by jury. Instead, they undergo an adjudication hearing where the judge rules whether the juvenile is a delinquent. Since this separation, several studies have been conducted to weigh the benefits and costs; such as effectiveness, efficiency, and cost of resources, of having two court systems. Is the United States juvenile court appropriate or should it be abolished? Abolishing the juvenile court system would mean juveniles and adults would both undergo the same criminal justice system. Rothstein states in his research that juvenile courts are a cost-effective way to handle less serious offenses by children (as cited in Acker, Hendrix, and Hogan, and Kordzek, 2001, p. 200). On the other hand, Robert Dawson (1990) argues that there are not enough legal differences between juvenile and adult courts for there to be a need for a separation, concluding that overlap between both systems is so great that having a juvenile court is unnecessary. Supporting this argument, Barry Feld (1997) calls the two systems “duplicative” (p 69).

Laws tend to make the lives of every individual safer and pleasant. The subject of this paper focuses on evaluating and identifying the Constitutional safeguards within the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments of the United States Constitution. How these safeguards to the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment will apply to juvenile and adult court proceedings. Finally, this paper will focus the impact that these safeguards, such as speedy trial, Miranda warning, exclusionary rule, and right to counsel will have on the day- to- day operation for juvenile and adult courts.

The Juvenile System has been around for a long time. The primary reason behind separating Juvenile from adult criminals is quite simple; the judicial system believes that the children are less culpable for their irresponsive behavior and they could easily be reformed as compared to adult offenders. The crucial role of the judicial system is to critically investigate, diagnose, and recommend treatments for the Juveniles rather than accrediting them. However, because of the increasing number of juvenile arrest for crimes committed by persons considered as a child, the attention that the given to a crime involving juveniles, the decreasing trust to the juvenile system itself and the lauder roar of the society for a safer place to live in,