People V Smith Case Summary

Whether a child who has committed a serious crime deserves rehabilitation or harsh punishment has been argued and the Juvenile Justice System is being blamed. Children who deserve real punishment are receiving rehab and children who deserve rehab are receiving harsh punishment. Many children’s lives are getting ruined because of unnecessary harsh punishment. Some juvenile offenders are not learning their lesson. The article “Sentences Show Acknowledge Juveniles’ Maturity, and Immaturity,” by Laurence Steinburg and the article, “Remember the Victims of Juvenile Offenders,” by Jenifer Bishop-Jenkins differ not only in their views of issues surrounding the American juvenile justice system, they differ in quality; however, Steinburg who argues for rehabilitation, clearly presents the best argument using logical reasoning and relevant evidence.

All juveniles should not receive life sentences for felony crimes committed one time. Every year in the US, children as young as 13 years of age are sentenced to spend the rest of their years of life in prison; sometimes, without the option of parole. Juvenile life without parole may also be known as “JLWOP.” Even though there’s a consensus saying that a child cannot be tried or held at the same standards as an adult and recognize that children are empowered to a higher level of treatment and protection, the US still allow for children to be tried and/or punished as an adult.

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.

Facts: John Angus Smith attempted to trade a Mac 10 machine gun for 2 ounces of cocaine. Smith was then arrested for possession of cocaine and a fully automatic weapon. Federal law requires a mandatory minimum prison sentence for 30 years if a machine gun is "used" in the commission of a drug offense, and because these two things were used in conjunction, Smith was sentenced to 30 years in prison.

ISSUE: (1) The police department continued with the interrogations process that led to incriminating statements without reading the defendant’s rights.

The dilemma of whether or not to transfer juveniles to adult court has been a major topic, for many years, in the United States. Since 1899, judges have had the option to transfer juveniles to adult court. The major factor for transferring juveniles to adult court since then has been the seriousness of the offense. That being said, juveniles only make up a small portion of violent crimes in the United States. Only 16 percent of juvenile offenders in 2008 were arrested for violent crimes (Champion,2008). The problem is the determination of whether the crime is serious enough to be waived and transferred to adult court. Almost every state has statutory judicial waiver provisions, which grant juvenile judges the authority to transfer

The court, at the sentencing hearing, shall consider specified factors in determining the appropriate sentence and be given greater discretion in determining an appropriate sentence. This bill extracts details from the Juvenile Court Act of 1987, which entails the cautions when handling the minor in custody and as the minor is released (Illinois General Assembly , 2015). When adolescence potency extended a peak more than 20 years ago, the country lost sureness in its ability to rehabilitate juveniles. Councils passed laws permitting more young offenders to be tried as adults. Since then, juvenile

The article Changing Juvenile Justice Policy in Response to the US Supreme Court: Implementing Miller v. Alabama by Alesa Liles and Stacy Moak examine the evolution of juvenile justice policy in the United States, by analyzing three important Supreme Court holdings: Roper v. Simmons (2005), Graham v. Florida (2010), and Miller v. Alabama (2011). These decisions have transformed the juvenile justice system, by recognizing the inherent differences and needs of juvenile offenders. Liles and Moak (2015) investigate the impact of Miller (2011) on state juvenile justice policies, by examining each state’s legislation regarding mandatory life without parole and similar sentences for juveniles. The authors conclude the article, by proposing

At the end of the 19th Century, the U.S. made legal history when the world's first juvenile court opened in Chicago(Horwitz-Prisco). The court was founded on two basic principles. First, juveniles lacked the maturity to take responsibility for their actions the way adults could. Second, because their character was not yet fully developed, they could be rehabilitated more successfully than adult criminals. More than a century later, these principles remain the benchmarks of juvenile justice in the United States(Horowitz-Prisco).In recent years, however, a growing number of juvenile criminals are being tried as adults. In part this stems from public outrage against children who are committing violent crimes. Many young children in America are

Teen Court’s successes first derive from the aspect of using sentencing as a way of personal reform instead of just by punishment. This gives the program the ability to have a greater impact on these first-time offenders because they are given the opportunity to think about their actions and correct their wrongdoings. First-time offenders, teens who do not have a juvenile record, are typically kids who get involved with the wrong crowd and commit crimes such as underage drinking or shoplifting. These special court cases are not a determination of innocence or guilt, but a way of determining the

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).

The purpose of the law that expunge a juvenile offender’s record of delinquency when he or she reaches a certain age is to allow young offenders who have been found guilty of their mistakes when they were a youth to enter adulthood without the negative unfair beliefs that a society or people have pertaining to the disapproval that most have when they hear about someone past that has an impression or a mark of disgrace that comes from having a criminal record. In the case of the people verse Smith, the defendant Ricky Franklin Smith was convicted from the basis of his guilty plea of breaking and entering and of being an offender previously convicted of a repeat of the same type illegal act. Smith’s argument is that he should be resentenced

Juvenile delinquency has been a problem in the United States ever since it has been able to be documented. From 100 years ago to now, the process of juvenile delinquency has changed dramatically; from the way juveniles are tried, to the way that they are released back into society, so that they do not return back to the justice system (Scott and Steinberg, 2008). Saying this, juveniles tend to

The nation’s first juvenile court was established in 1899 as a part of the Juvenile Court Act. It was founded on three principles: juveniles are not ready to be held accountable for their actions, are not yet fully developed, and can rehabilitate easier than adults. In all but three states, anyone charged with committing a criminal act before his or her eighteenth birthday is considered a juvenile offender. Now more than ever, states and countries have begun to question the reliability of the juvenile court. Some believe the juvenile court system should be abolished because of its insufficient gain to the community. Others believe children are not fully capable to understand the degree of their actions and the consequences that come from them and believe that juvenile courts are a necessity in the court 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.