Juvenile Justice
Separation between adults and youth criminals are
the norm today but not always the case
Adult punishments of today along with corporal
punishment was administered
Minor offenses were given death sentences
(forgery and horse theft)
Most of the capital punishments are given to
adults today since 1988 but are not recognized in
some states – some still sentence 16 year olds to
death (14 states) but since they are
“unconstitutional” they are just not enforceable
The court system was designed to “rehabilitate”
the kids and not to punish them for their parents
misdoings
Court tried a moralistic approach
1899 – Cook County, Illinois, - informal
The court used a system called parens patriae
(parent of the country) – means that the court can
decide the punishment for the child based on what
they thought was good for the child
Different terms used: page 188
Courts are different today: 3 types of juvenile
offenders
Delinquent, status, neglected and abused
Delinquent: act is a crime if committed as an adult
Status: acts that are not crimes (running away from
home, being truant from school, and being beyond
parental control.)
Status offenders are virtually never incarcerated for
their first offense. But if they later violate a court
order governing their behavior, they can be found
delinquent
Habitual behavior and repeat offenders are usually
characteristics of needing supervision other than
parental
Neglected/Abused: court protection from parent or
guardian
Controversy with parental responsibility laws or even
parents being charged with contributing to the
delinquency of a minor
Status Offenses
What is a status Offense?
Where there any examples of status
offenses in today’s homework?
Status offenses make up 20% of all
juvenile arrests.
Do you think status offense are
represented in court equal as
delinquent offenses?
Juvenile
Before courts – anyone under the age of 7 – found to
incapable of criminal intent
Children 7-14 seen as incapable unless they could be
found to have known the act was a crime or done to
hurt another
Most today are considered if under 18 – some 16 or 17
Some states try juveniles as adults for serious crimes
Judges and/or prosecutors make decisions as to
whether or not to try in an adult court
Others go through a waiver hearing
Things considered are: past record, seriousness of crime,
likelihood of rehabilitation before adulthood
What were the 5 criteria the juvenile court must consider when
determining whether to certify a child up to the adult
system in California?
Debate is this: if there is going to
harsher punishments and being tried as
an adult for offenses (get tough
attitude) – should their even be a
separate court system?
Are harsher punishments the way to go
with all juveniles?
Robert Merton believes that there is
a serious relationship between
poverty and crime.
He feels that there are
institutionalized paths to happiness in
our society.
He believes in a society of equilibrium
where goals = means
Pros
Those who favor keeping the death
penalty for juveniles make the following
arguments:
State legislatures should determine
whether or not juveniles should be
executed for capital crimes, not the
courts.
Juries should determine the culpability
of juveniles on a case-by-case basis, on
the nature of the crime and the
maturity level of the individual juvenile.
In a society, which is experiencing an
increase in violence by juveniles, banning
the death penalty would remove a muchneeded deterrent.
What other countries do concerning
executing juveniles should not be
relevant to the court's consideration of
what the United States Constitution
demands.
Cons
Those who oppose the death
penalty for juveniles make these
arguments:
Executing children is immoral and
uncivilized.
Scientific research shows that
juveniles are underdeveloped and
immature, particularly in the areas
of the brain that dictate reason,
impulse control and decisionmaking, and therefore should not
be held culpable.
A high percentage of juveniles on
death row have suffered from
mental abuse, physical abuse,
sexual abuse, drug addiction,
abandonment and severe poverty.
The execution of juveniles is
expressly forbidden in the
International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, the American
Convention on Human Rights, the
Geneva Convention Relative to the
Protection of Civilian Persons in
Time of War, and the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of
the Child.
Today’s
justice
By 1966 there was a revamp of the juvenile court system
Kent v. United States (1966) (holding that youth transferred to
adult courts were entitled to a hearing, meaningful
representation by counsel, and a statement of reasons for the
transfer);
In Gault (1967) (holding that a youth subject to delinquency
proceedings has the right to notice and an opportunity to be
heard, to counsel, to cross-examine witnesses, and the right
against self-incrimination);
In Winship (1970) (holding that a state must prove a youth
guilty of charges beyond a reasonable doubt);
Breed v. Jones (1975) (holding that the double jeopardy clause
prohibits states from transferring a youth to adult court after
finding him delinquent
McKeiver v Pennsylvania (1971) jury trial not required in order to
protect privacy of hearings
Facts of the Case - Winship
At age twelve, Samuel Winship was arrested and charged as a juvenile
delinquent for breaking into a woman's locker and stealing $112 from her
pocketbook. The charge also alleged that had Winship's act been done by
an adult, it would constitute larceny. Relying on Section 744(b) of the
New York Family Court Act, which provided that determinations of
juvenile's guilt be based on a preponderance of the evidence, a Family
Court found Winship guilty, despite acknowledging that the evidence did
not establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Winship's appeal of the
court's use of the lower "preponderance of the evidence" burden of
proof, was rejected in both the Appellate Division of the New York
Supreme Court and in the New York Court of Appeals before the
Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Question
Does the requirement that juvenile convictions rest on "preponderance of
the evidence" burden of proof, as opposed to that stricter "beyond a
reasonable doubt" threshold, violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Due
Process Clause?
Conclusion
Yes. In a 5-to-3 decision, the Court found that when establishing guilt of
criminal charges the strict "reasonable-doubt" standard must be applied
to both adults and juveniles alike. The Court noted that by establishing
guilt based only on a "preponderance of the evidence," as is customary in
civil cases, courts were denying criminal defendants a fundamental
constitutional safeguard against the possibility that their fate be
incorrectly decided due to fact-finding errors. The Court concluded that
mere variations in age among criminal defendants will not suffice to
warrant the use of different burdens of proof so long as they all face
loss of liberty as a possible sentence.
Breed v. Jones
421 U.S. 519, 95 S.Ct. 1779 (1975)
In 1970, Gary Jones, age 17, was charged with armed
robbery. Jones appeared in Los Angeles juvenile court
and was adjudicated delinquent on the original charge
and two other robberies.
At the dispositional hearing, the judge waived
jurisdiction over the case to criminal court. Counsel for
Jones filed a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the
waiver to criminal court violated the double jeopardy
clause of the fifth amendment. The court denied this
petition, saying that Jones had not been tried twice
because juvenile adjudication is not a "trial" and does
not place a youth in jeopardy.
Upon appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an
adjudication in juvenile court, in which a juvenile is
found to have violated a criminal statute, is equivalent to
a trial in criminal court. Thus, Jones had been placed in
double jeopardy. The Court also specified that jeopardy
applies at the adjudication hearing when evidence is
first presented. Waiver cannot occur after jeopardy
attaches.
Gault
In 1964, when Gerry Gault was 15, the police accused him of
making an obscene phone call to a neighbor. He was placed in a
detention center, and his parents were not told what had
happened. When they finally found out, they were told he would
have a hearing the next day, but neither Gerry nor his parents
knew what he was accused of doing. At the hearing, a police
officer testified about the neighbor's complaint because the
neighbor did not show up. Gerry did not have a lawyer. He told the
judge that he was innocent, and that one of his friends had made
the call. The judge found him guilty and sent him to state reform
school for six years. An adult found guilty of the same crime
could have been sent to jail for no more than 60 days.
Gerry's case eventually went to the U.S. Supreme Court. The
justices decided that his trial had been unfair and that juveniles
deserve many of the same rights as adults. As a result, juveniles
who are accused of crimes now have the following rights:
to remain silent
* to have a lawyer present during
any case that might result in
confinement
* to know what crime they are
accused of committing
* to have parents or a guardian
given adequate notice of the
accusation
* to question witnesses
* to confront the accuser
* to have a prompt detention
hearing
* to have a review hearing on an
annual basis
Homework
Problem 16.4 – will be collected
Due Monday
Also due Monday is the article about
the 11 year old boy who shot his step
mother.