Evolution of the Rights of Juveniles - Research Paper Example

Development of Juvenile Justice System Introduction Juveniles across the world do make the mistake of committing some serious crimes and hence the world can witness a great number of such juveniles charged for their delinquency. The juveniles in the American society have already undergone some great changes in their lives as a result of the strong impact of the juvenile cases. It was in the mid of 1960s when the juveniles in the US realized that they have been deprived of the constitutional rights (Nurcombe, 1994, p.274). This sense of deprivation became the source of changing the manner juvenile cases were dealt. As the juveniles became highly determined to gain their constitutional rights, the need for rehabilitation of these tender juveniles was felt. Hence, it was decided that the juveniles must undergo rehabilitation rather than the rigorous punishments. A number of cases helped in realizing the fact that juvenile cases must be treated in a different manner. However, seven juvenile cases are believed to entirely shift the paradigm of the justice system for juveniles in the US. The duration of these lucky seven cases ranges from the year 1966 to 2005 and had a great impact on the juvenile justice system of America. Body The juveniles’ rights (1960-1990): Various cases addressed the problems of the juveniles and facilitated the struggle of the American juveniles to gain their constitutional rights. It was in the 1960s when the juveniles were given their major rights including the right to affront the accusers, the right to gain support of a counsel, the right of cross-questioning a witness, the right of minimum course of judicial proceedings, right to court’s notice, the right against taking responsibility and the right to be familiar about the legal proceedings before transfer to criminal court (Burfeind, 2011, p.22). It is often questioned that why a 17 year old is not granted the same rights as that of an 18 year old juvenile. Nevertheless, the juveniles do not still have the privilege to enjoy as many rights as the adults do. The Kent v. United States is one such sensational juvenile case that played a prominent role in bringing about some positive changes in the behavior American juvenile were treated with. Kent v. United States (1966) In the Kent v. United States is believed to mark beginning in altering the juvenile court reforms in America (Hess, 2010, p.47). This particular case, for the first time, acknowledged the fact that no juvenile would be sent to criminal courts until a voluntary surrender of a right is relinquished. The story begins with the apprehension of a 14 year old boy, Morris A Kent, who dwelled in the District of Columbia. Kent was accused for housebreakings and a couple of purse snatching cases. In the year 1959, Kent was placed on an ordeal, in the strict guardianship of his mother. In the year 1961, a woman was raped in her apartment by an intruder who after sexually abusing the woman also took her wallet. Police took the finger prints from the crime scene and surprisingly these finger prints matched with those of Kent’s. Hence, at the tender age of 16 years, Kent was arrested and interrogated by the cops for almost 7 long hours. Kent not only provided information about housebreaking and other crimes, but also admitted to the charges of burglaries and trespass into the woman’s apartment. The next day, Kent’s mother got aware that his son would be sent to criminal court and she immediately acquired counsel for his son’s defense. It appeared that the judicial officer had no intention of pursuing Kent’s case because no lawsuit was available against Kent and he was kept under holding facility for a week. Kent was convicted to prison for 30 to 90 years as the juvenile judge could not claim the privilege for Kent. It was, however, an established fact that time spent by a juvenile in a mental academy would be counted as a sufficed time. Later, a slight change in juvenile courts was witnessed when the Supreme Court declared that Morris A Kent’s basic right to gain efficacious counsel assistance was greatly violated. Hence, the Supreme Court announced the verdict that no juvenile could be sent to criminal courts before proper legal proceedings of their cases is made. In re Gault (1967) This particular case helped the juveniles to earn four basic rights that would guard their constitutional status in the society. These four rights included the right to cross-question the witnesses, the right of counsel’s assistance, the right of calling forth the benefit against taking responsibility and the right to get the court’s notice of the alleged charges. However, the court turned down the juvenile’s request of granting the right to get the transcript of the court’s hearing and submit a review appeal in the court. It was Mr. Gault, a 15 year old boy, who was apprehended on charges of inviting a neighbor to his home to hold salacious talks (Gold, 2008, p.129). Later, Gault’s parents became aware that their son was taken to the Detention Home for children after being accused by a neighbor, Mrs. Cooks. The court called for hearing on this case on 9TH June in the absence of the accuser, Mrs. Cooks. Also, no legal documents were presented to the court and no record was prepared to aid the proceedings. An affidavit was submitted to the judge in whom a brief record of Gault’s behavior was provided with the previous record of a theft. Hence, the judge announced the verdict that Gault is found guilty of making obscene phone calls and should be detained in Arizona State Industrial School throughout he spent life as a minority. The state declared a maximum 6 year verdict for a juvenile and the same dereliction for an adult is either a fine of worth 50$ or a 60 days imprisonment. Later, the Supreme Court struck with awe upon knowing that how Gault’s case was ill-treated and the Court ruled in Gault’s approbation by 7-2 vote. In re Winship (1970) It was Samuel Winship’s case that forced the Supreme Court to declare that only those juvenile cases would be brought for hearing that are verified in accordance to the notion of ‘beyond any reasonable doubt’ (Cole, 2008, p.390). The 12 year old Samuel Winship was arrested on pick pocketing charges. According to the New York Family Circuit Court Act, a child who commits an illegal act when he is above 7 years of age or below 16 would be considered as a juvenile delinquency. While the New York laws emphasized upon the fact that determination to commit an illegal act would be considered as a crime, the juvenile judge made it clear that there were no enough evidence against Winship. Winship was arrested due to the mere doubts that the young boy might have committed the crime of pick pocketing. Although, Winship’s case was not as complicated as others, the Supreme Court declared after ruling a 6-3 vote that a juvenile case can only undergo legal proceedings if there are evidences beyond any reasonable doubt. Breed v. Jones (1975): This case removed the hurdles from the ways of the American juveniles by granting them the right of double jeopardy. Breed was a 17 years old boy who was charged with armed robbery. Breed was found guilty after the hearing was carried out at the juvenile level. This trial was later moved to the courts that dealt with criminal cases and Breed had to undergo a trial over there as well and the verdict, announced by juvenile court, remained unchanged. The Supreme Court then heard this case and prohibited double jeopardy. It was clearly stated by the Supreme Court that a case must be trialed at the juvenile level and if a need to transfer the case to criminal level is felt then no juvenile court has the right to trial that particular case. Fare v. Michael (1979) This case helped a great deal in regulating the rights of the juveniles in America. A young boy named Michael was charged for murder and held under custody. Michael then expressed the desire that his officer who was responsible for his probation should be presented for inquiry, but his appeal was turned down. Michael responded well to the blast of interrogation by the cops and provides them some criminal evidences. Surprisingly, Michael had refused to take advantage from his right to gain counsel’s assistance and this move was appreciated by the Supreme Court. This strange decision by Michael became the reason of giving birth to the 9-point method by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeal to determine if the juveniles know the acrimony of waiving their judicial rights (Joseph, 1995, p.74). The nine point method comprises of age and educational element, rights of having an attorney, remaining silent and knowledge about the charge being levied on the juvenile, identification of contact with acquaintances, the time at which the officer assigned by the judiciary will interrogate, method and length of inquiry, identification of whether the accused had previously denied to give statements and whether had rejected his statement after words. Woods v. Clusen (1986) This case became the reason of ruling out the chances that a juvenile be admissible in court to confess a crime only because he was forced to do so. A 16.5 years old boy was yanked from his house and intimidated to confess to any crime that would be burdened upon him. As a result, the Seventh Circuit Court strictly declared that no such juvenile, who is forced to accept a crime, would undergo trial in the courts (Lawrence, 2010, p.130). The Death penalty Roper v. Simmons (2005) Critics believe that this case forever changed the way juveniles were trialed. It was in the year 2005 when the Supreme Court made a much-needed announcement that execution of juveniles is nothing, but a savagely cruel act (Freeman, 2009, p.183). A 17 years old guy from Missouri made a barbaric attempt of killing a woman. Simmons, along with his friend, Charles Benjamin reached his destination to carry out the assault. His destination was the house of Shirley Crook where Simmons not only made a successful robbery attempt, but also killed her. Simmons had taken the lady to a nearby river with her hands and feet tied with a wire where he brutally continued to toss her head into the river to kill her. The court sentenced Simmons to death. This verdict was challenged in the Supreme Court by Simmons who filed a review appeal against the death penalty. Supreme Court then declared it to be unconstitutional to sentence the juvenile with a death penalty. Conclusion These cases have contributed a great deal in bringing some positive changes in the juvenile justice system of US. However, the issue still exists as to how the juveniles be punished. Some critics still argue that juveniles must not be punished, but should be sent to rehabilitation centers for proper grooming. These centers must alter the criminal mindset of the juveniles through enforcement of strict rules to make them a sophisticated member of the society. References Burfeind, James W., and Dawn Jeglum Bartusch. Juvenile delinquency: an integrated approach. 2nd ed. Sudbury, Mass.: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2011. Print. Cole, George F., and Christopher E. Smith. Criminal justice in America. 5th ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth, 2008. Print. Freeman, Michael D. A., and Oliver R. Goodenough. Law, mind and brain. Farnham, England: Ashgate, 2009. Print. Gold, Susan Dudley. In Re Gault: do minors have the same rights as adults?. New York: Marshall Cavendish Benchmark, 2008. Print. Hess, Kären M., and Christine M. H. Orthmann. Juvenile justice. 5th ed. Australia: Cengage Learning/Wadsworth, 2010. Print. Joseph, Janice. Black youths, delinquency, and juvenile justice. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1995. Print. Lawrence, Richard, and Mario Hesse. Juvenile justice: the essentials. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications, 2010. Print. Nurcombe, Barry, and David F. Partlett. Child mental health and the law. New York: Free Press ;, 1994. Print. Read More