This case is about a 15 year old kid, along with a friend, who made an erotic call to a neighbor's house. The alleged incident took place on June 8, 1964 by Gerald Gault and Ronald Lewis. Mrs. Cook, the neighbor, filed a complaint which resulted in Gerald Gault’s arrest. Gerald was indeed on probation for something he had done prior to this incident. The officer who made the arrest did not leave notice for the juvenile's parents and did not endeavor to advise them of their child's arrest, however, they found out about the arrest from Ronald Lewis later.. “After arresting a juvenile, an officer must notify the juvenile's parent or legal guardian regarding: the whereabouts of the child, the nature of the charges, and the police department's planned course of action” (O'Neil, 2010). Gerald’s mother was giving information on when the hearing for her son was after arriving where he was …show more content…
“The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to determine the procedural rights of a juvenile defendant in delinquency proceedings where there is a possibility of incarceration” (U.S. Courts, n.d.). According to the U. S. Supreme court, there was a violation of the 14th Amendment in Gault’s case in the lower courts. Holdings The Court ruled for the juvenile, stating that his rights to due process were indeed violated according to the Fourteenth Amendment. “The proceedings of the Juvenile Court failed to comply with the Constitution. The Court held that the proceedings for juveniles had to comply with the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment” (Oyez, n.d.). The Court analyzed the juvenile court's method of handling cases, verifying that, while there are good reasons behind handling juveniles in a different way from adults, adolescents seeking to settling delinquency and detainment cases are qualified for certain procedural safeguards under the Due Process Act of the Fourteenth
For this assignment, we learned that Maurice Clarett filed a case against the NFL where he argued that the NFL’s three-year rule acted as an unreasonable restraint in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Act. On the other hand, the NFL argued that its three-year rule was covered from the antitrust laws by the nonstatutory labor exemption. First, the case was reviewed by the district court which concluded that the NFL's eligibility rules violated antitrust laws by requiring the player to wait at least three years before entering the NFL draft and that the eligibility criteria was not immune from those antitrust laws. The court favored Clarett making him eligible for the 2004 NFL Draft.
Ms. Dollree Mapp and her daughter lived in Cleveland, Ohio. After receiving information that an individual wanted in connection with a recent bombing was hiding in Mapp's house, the Cleveland police knocked on her door and demanded entrance. Mapp called her attorney and subsequently refused to let the police in when they failed to produce a search warrant. After several hours of surveillance and the arrival of more officers, the police again sought entrance to the house. Although Mapp did not allow them to enter, they gained access by forcibly opening at least one door. Once the police were inside the house, Mapp confronted them and demanded to see their warrant. One of the officers held up a piece of paper claiming it was a search warrant. Mapp grabbed the paper but an officer recovered it and handcuffed Mapp ?because she had been belligerent.? Dragging Mapp upstairs, officers proceeded to search not only her room, but also her daughter?s bedroom, the kitchen, dinette, living room, and basement.
The Supreme Court exercised its interpretation of the Constitution and found that a violation of the First Amendment was apparent and therefore, also a violation of the fourteenth Amendment showing that due process of the law was not given.
Conclusion. Landmark ruling {desire to set foundation for equality} the fifth circuit held that public colleges and universities must extend due process rights to their students in disciplinary hearings. Under the fifth circuit precedent, if a student faces action by a university for academic reasons, rather than disciplinary ones, that student is not entitled to due process and courts won't step in. this is so every academic decision is not scrutinized. Part of the decisions that altered the juvie system to allow due process. The court established that juveniles had the same rights as adults in important areas of trail process, including the right to confront witnesses, notice of charges, and the right to counsel
Moore, W.D. The fourteenth amendment’s initial authority: problems of constitutional coherence. Temple Political and Civil Rights Law Review. 2014. Vol NN:N. pp101-132.
The article titled “ Juvenile Justice from Both Sides of the Bench”, published by PBS, and written by Janet Tobias and Michael Martin informs readers on numerous judges’ opinions on the juveniles being tried as adults. Judge Thomas Edwards believed that juveniles should not be tried as adults because they are still not mature enough to see the consequences of their actions and have a chance to minimize this behavior through rehabilitation programs. Judge LaDoris Cordell argues that although we shouldn’t give up on juveniles and instead help them be a part of society, however, she believes that some sophisticated teens that create horrible crimes should be tried as adults. Bridgett Jones claims that teens think differently than adults and still
The process of transferring juveniles to adult courts has shown no effects on decreasing recidivism or a deterrent outcome. Waiver as it is known has three means by which a juvenile can be transferred to an adult court. Judicial waiver offenses, statutory exclusions, and concurrent jurisdiction are the three methods in which a waiver can occur. This research will describe each one of these methods with detail. It will also provide statistical facts showing why waiver can be a very debatable topic within the juvenile criminal justice system. In its totality it will discuss the arguments for and against waiver.
The book, No Matter How Loud I Shout, takes an in-depth look at the juvenile court system in the state of California in the 1990s. Through a colorful narrative story the author, Edward Humes, paints of vivid picture of the how dysfunctional the system truly was. The main focus is on the various ways the system has failed many of the juveniles that it is intended to help. Peggy Beckstrand, the Deputy District Attorney, says it best “The first thing you learn about this place, is that nothing works.” (No Matter How Loud I Shout, 1996, p.31)
The respondent appealed the Juvenile Court decision to the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court. The Appellate Division agreed with the lower court’s decision that there was no Fourth Amendment violation, but dismissed the delinquency verdict and incarcerated the respondent on other grounds.
Police officers have a great amount of discretion. Since they are not always supervised and on patrol they choose which cases should be process and which one should just be not. Police discretion is the most important part because it determines the outcomes of the interaction between the police and the juvenile. Krisberg and Austin noted that police have five basic options in deciding what course of action to pursue with juveniles. The first one would be release, accompanied by a warning to the juvenile. The second one would be release, accompanied by an official report. The third one would be Station adjustment. Which include release to parent accompanied by an official reprimand, referral to a community youth agency, or referral to a public or private social welfare or mental health agency. Fourth would be Referral to juvenile court without detention and last referral to the juvenile court with detention.
Supreme Court ruling Graham v. Florida (2010) banned the use of life without parole for juveniles who committed non-homicide crimes, and Roper v. Simmons (2005) abolished the use of the death penalty for juvenile offenders. They both argued that these sentences violated the 8th Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. While these landmark cases made great strides for the rights of minors passing through the criminal justice system, they are just the first steps in creating a juvenile justice system that takes into consideration the vast differences between adolescents and adults. Using sociological (Butler, 2010) and legal (Harvard Law Review, 2010) documents, this essay will explicate why the next such step to be taken is entirely eliminating the use of the life without parole sentence for juveniles, regardless of the nature of the crime being charged.
Knodle, K. (1978). Discretion and dispositional alternatives in police handling of juvenile cases. Retrieved March 1 , 2010, from http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=75217
As of 2007, nine states have granted juveniles the constitutional right to request a jury trial. Eleven more states will grant a jury trial under very narrow circumstances such as when juveniles may be subject to adult incarceration facilities, violent and serial offenders, as well as juveniles who seek appellate review of their disposition. That leaves thirty-one jurisdictions, including Maine, that have fallen into the shadow of the Supreme Court decision McKeiver v. Pennsylvania to not yet extend jury trials in juvenile court systems. But the landscape of juvenile courts looks much different today than it did forty-three years ago when McKeiver was decided. The juvenile system is no longer so distinct from its criminal counterpart; in fact, juvenile courts have developed many punitive practices that go against the idea of a purely rehabilitative focus. This paper will focus on the origins of the jury trial and the juvenile justice system, the constitutional arguments that render jury trials necessary in juvenile courts, policy arguments for the functioning of those jury trials, and how jury trials fit and thus should be included in the Maine Juvenile Code.
Juveniles deserve to be tried the same as adults when they commit certain crimes. The justice systems of America are becoming completely unjust and easy to break through. Juvenile courts haven’t always been known to the everyday person.
There is much debate on police authority concerning juvenile offenders in comparison with adult offenders. Police are often referred to as "the gatekeepers ." In the case of juveniles, the role of the police officer is important because a young person 's attitudes and views of law enforcement are shaped upon their first encounter with law enforcement, dependent on the outcome of the encounter. In fact, the police begin the criminal justice process within the decision making process of discretion about how to handle a case with juvenile involvement. Our text states that "Most youths appear to have positive attitude toward the police," however, "juveniles who have not had contact with the police are more positive than those who have had police