Juvenile Case on The People v. Eric S - Essay Example

?Ravinovich D Zaur Crim: 309 California Los Angeles David Estep J.D 11/07/12 Juvenile Case on The People v. Eric S. Justice is an issue that is crucial in every society, this is due to the fact that it is only when justice has prevailed that citizens feel that their rights have been ensured. As such, people who commit crimes of any kind have to be punished or pay for their actions in a number of ways. This is the only way that justice can be reached for those that have been offended. At most times, it is adults, who are individuals above 18 years when they commit offenses. These people are taken to regular courts and if need be are jailed after justice has been reached as per the rules of the land. On the other hand, if the offender is below 18 years of age, a different set of rules apply. These persons are tried under juvenile law where the goal is to rehabilitate rather than punish the minors for crimes done. This will be the focus of this discussion and this paper will look at various issues as pertains to a juvenile case The People v. Eric S. Considering juvenile case number A125758 of the people as the plaintiff and Eric S. as the defendant/appellant, there are a number of issues that arise. This case arose when the appellant, 17 year old Eric together with his two teenage companions attacked a 44 year old man. During the attack, the appellant hit the victim in the head with a two by four resulting in severe injuries. These injuries included a gash in the head that required seven staples, a fractured cheekbone resulting to swelling of the face, a contusion on his right forearm and a sprained knee and torn ligaments (Justia US Law, 2). In addition to this, the victim suffered a black eye and severe swelling of the knee and forearm. Being a member of the Kaiser family foundation, the victim received extensive medical treatment at a Kaiser facility. After the court hearing, the appellant was declared a ward of the juvenile court when he admitted to a felony assault count of using force likely to cause great bodily injury. The decision of the court was to release him but put him on home probation under a number of conditions (Justia US Law, 2). In addition to these conditions, he was required to pay direct victim restitution. In the restitution hearing, the district attorney asked the court to include the cost of the victim’s treatment at the Kaiser Foundation. This amounted to $51,270.06 which included $48, 619.90 for the cost incurred at the Kaiser Family plus an additional $2,650.16 for out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the victim. According to People v. Duong (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1533 (Duong), the court held that victim restitution ordered against adult offenders under Penal Code section 1202.4 may include amounts billed for medical services provided by a health maintenance organization (Findlaw, 5).As a result of this decision, there were a number of legal questions that arose, first of all, the question of having to pay for the cost of all the treatment that the victim received at the Kaiser Family Foundation. Would it not be fair enough if the appellant only covered the victim’s out of-pocket expenses? This is from reasoning that the victim was a member of the Kaiser HMO and thus would not have to pay for the medical services that he received from the institution. Another question that arose was the fact that direct restitution should be limited to the economic losses a victim occurs as a result of an attack and should not include medical expenses that the victim did not pay for personally. PART 2 In defense of the ordered restitution amount that was to include the medical care provided by the Kaiser Foundation, one critical question was answered by the case. This was the fact that ordering restitution for a victim in a juvenile case was to serve three functions which include, to rehabilitate the defender, to prevent future delinquent behavior and finally to make the victim whole by compensating him for the economic losses that he suffered as a result of the attack (Justia US Law, 4). The case points out the fact that to achieve all these, the restitution amount must be able to fully compensate the victim without considering any reimbursement from a third party. This is the reason why the 44 year old victim had to be repaid the amount that had been provided for by Kaiser Foundation in his treatment. This question is important due to the fact that it will act as a warning to other teenagers who may want to behave in delinquent ways not to do so. If there are any teenagers who may be thinking of doing such an act they would be scared thinking of the amount that they would have to pay in case the victim suffered some serious injury. This would help the whole community as there would be less moral decadent behaviors and a resultant decrease in juvenile related cases. The case answers a critical question considering the fact that there has been an increase in the number of juvenile related cases. In most areas, young people are continually committing crimes and there should be ways to help curb this trend. Coming up with decisions such as restitution orders is one of the ways that will ensure that there is a decrease in these decadent activities. Justia US Law supports this decision by saying ‘the purpose of a victim restitution order in a juvenile case is threefold: to rehabilitate the defendant, deter future delinquent behavior and make the victim whole by compensating him for his economic losses (4). PART 3 The approach used in this case was not satisfactory. This is due to the fact that yes the victim was compensated but the teenager who committed the crime did not receive any form of help and there was no quest to find the reason why he had done what he did. The restitution order that he was supposed to settle may not be very effective in deterring him from committing another crime. The juvenile should have gone through thorough counseling to determine the driving factor towards what he did. This is the rehabilitation method that is deemed to be more caring (Siegel, 570). There may be something even bigger that may have led him to commit the crime and addressing the issue from the root may have been more helpful than merely making him pay the restitution order and facing probation. According to the decision made by the court, it is clear that the crime control method was used. According to Rosenfeld and Sajo, this is a point whereby criminal cases are dealt with quickly and ‘discarded’ at the earliest opportunity (935). This is because the decision on the case was made without really looking at the juvenile’s background. Though still a significant method, considering the fact that many cases can be dealt with within a short time. It has a disadvantage in that the root of the matter may not be dealt with. The main factor that led an individual to commit a crime may not be unraveled. As such, justice may prevail but the offender may not have been helped and may still commit other crimes. To prevent this from happening, the rehabilitation model should have been used. In this case, the teenagers social life should have been assessed, some of the people that he associates with should have been interviewed to ascertain what kind of an individual he is and whether he has any problems or not (Siegel, 570). In addition to this, his family life should have been observed since familial problems may encourage a person to engage in delinquent activities. If all these factors had been considered, yes, the victim could have received justice and the offender could have been helped thus reducing the chances of him committing another crime. This would have helped not only the offender and the victim but the society as a whole. Due process was designed to ensure that individuals have their rights protected and that they get a fair trial to defend themselves in court (Rosenfeld & Sajo, 935). In this case, due process was adhered to in that the appellant had the opportunity to appeal to the restitution amount that was set. He argued that the amount should be limited only to the out-of-pocket expenses that the victim incurred (Justia US Law, 3). As a result of this, even though the whole amount was not nullified, it was reduced to an acceptable amount. This is in accordance with due process in that even though someone has committed a crime, their rights are still protected. The due process model is meant to tackle crimes and punish anyone who is found to have committed a deviant act and this is what was done in this case. As per Welfare and Institutions Code section 202, the purpose of the juvenile justice system was partly achieved in this case. According to the first part of the section, the purpose of the juvenile justice system is to provide protection and safety of the public (Roberson, 37). Considering this, the case may have achieved this by deciding that the juvenile should pay restitution for the victim. Based on this decision, other juveniles who may be considering acting in a delinquent manner get warned and as a result the number of delinquent activities will be reduced and the general public will be protected. In addition to this, the minor was not removed from the custody of his parents, a factor that the section does not advocate for. What the juvenile court considers punishment is what the court decided on, payment of a fine by the minor and placing him under probation are some of the punishment options under the Welfare and Institution code (Roberson, 38). These are the two decisions that the judges decided on thus they achieved the purpose of the Welfare and Institutions code. The approach taken by the court when dealing with this case had a little shortcoming. This is due to the fact that according to research, a juvenile case should be handled in a manner such that the driving factor to a teenager committing a crime should be unraveled. This should be followed by an action being taken to alleviate the situation. Therefore, in this case, the court should have investigated the boy further, probably with the help of a counselor so that they could identify where the real problem was and try helping him if any problem was found. If no problem was found, he should have been put in a correctional facility for some time so that he could meditate, learn his mistake and hopefully not repeat any delinquent behavior. Juveniles are people who are young and it is the responsibility of juvenile courts to ensure that they are not only punished for the wrongs that they do but also get guidance on proper ways of life or receive help where necessary. With these expectations, juvenile courts should also come up with the best approach to ensure that the victim gets his rights and the juvenile is helped accordingly. Works Cited FindLaw. In The Court of Appeal of The State of California First Appellate District. The People v. Tuan Quong Duong. 13thJanuary, 2010. Retrieved on 12thNovember, 2012 from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/a124640.pdf Justia US Law. In re Eric S., A Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. 23rd April, 2010. Retrieved on 7th November 2012 from http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court- of-appeal/2010/a125758/ Roberson, Cliff. Juvenile Justice: Theory and Practice. New York: CRC Press. (2010). Rosenfeld, Michel & Sajo, Andras. The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law. New York: Oxford University Press. (2012). Siegel, Larry. Criminology. Belmont: Cengage Learning. (2011). Read More