In the case In re Winship of 1970, a 12 year old boy named Samuel Winship was arrested for stealing $120 from a ladies locker and prosecuted by the New York Family Court. Prior to this case, Juveniles were judged based on preponderance of evidence. Based on the state statue juveniles did not need to be proven beyond reasonable doubt ("Body Politic In re Winship," n.a., p. 1).
When the case made it to the Supreme Court a decision was made that if a crime committed by a juvenile is equal to what the crime would be as an adult the court must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt even within the juvenile system. The court found that preponderance of evidence in a civil court such as with Winship still has to have the protection of the Fourteenth
II. Issues: Were the Defendant’s Fourteenth Amendment Rights under the Due Process Clause violated? Does Due Process apply to juveniles the same as it does to adults? The Supreme Court addressed the following issues In Re Gault 1967:
The book “No Matter How Loud I Shout” written by Edward Humes, looks at numerous major conflicts within the juvenile court system. There is a need for the juvenile system to rehabilitate the children away from their lives of crime, but it also needs to protect the public from the most violent and dangerous of its juveniles, causing one primary conflict. Further conflict arises with how the court is able to administer proper treatment or punishment and the rights of the child too due process. The final key issue is between those that call for a complete overhaul of the system, and the others who think it should just be taken apart. On both sides there is strong reasoning that supports each of their views, causing a lot of debate about the juvenile court system.
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
A 12 year old stole money from a lady’s wallet that was stored in a locker at the time it was taken. Samuel Winship, the defendant was charged with an act of delinquency. If Samuel was charged as an adult the crime would have be larceny. A New York Family court judge convicted Samuel on a preponderance of evidence, which at the time was all that was necessary according to New York State Statute. At the time of the trial a juvenile in the state of New York was at least seven years old, but younger than 16. Samuel was 12, which by law made him a juvenile that could be charged with an act of delinquency.
The use of juvenile records in adult criminal cases has been an ongoing, contested debate for many years. The effects of using one’s juvenile record in criminal court could be very damning. This week’s case summary is in regard to this very issue. In People v. Smith (1991), the defendant in this case, Ricky Smith stated that he was wrongly sentenced to the maximum length of 180 months under a statute which utilized his juvenile record to deem that he was a habitual offender. A closer examination follows.
When I first received this topic and did preliminary research, it seemed more of a race issue than a juvenile issue, since it happened during the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. With further research, I found that it influenced how public colleges and the juvenile justice system handle disciplinary matters. This case was a part of many cases that granted juveniles the right of due process. According to our textbook, due process is a basic constitutional law (found in the 14th amendment) focused on the belief that the individual has primacy and that governmental power should be limited to protect the individual. Due process is supposed to safeguard the individual from unfair state procedures in legal or administrative trails. Because of the case in question, due process rights have been extended to juvenile trials. Another case during this time where due process was in question was the Goldberg v. The Regents of California.
Thompson was tried as a juvenile offender until the Oklahoma attorney court general’s office filed a petition asking for Thompson to be tried as an adult for the crime and the court eventually agreed. The main two arguments for the plaintiff were that juveniles historically have been been less culpable for crimes than adults because of less intelligence
This quote by Edward Humes sums it up the best, “The fundamental question Juvenile Court was designed to ask - What's the best way to deal with this individual kid? - is often lost in the process, replaced by a point system that opens the door, or locks it, depending on the qualities of the crime, not the child.” (No Matter How Loud I shout, 1996, p. 325). The courts need to focus on what is best for the child and finding punishment that fits the child not the crime.
First it all begins with an arrest of a juvenile. Just because a juvenile gets arrested does not
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
In the article “Exercising the Body Politic” by Theodora A. Jankowski, the revolutionary attitudes of the Duchess of Malfi are examined. One claim Jankowski makes about the Duchess is the nature, and existence, of her marriage to Antonio. Of all her actions, the Duchess’ decision to marry is the most subversive decision she makes in the play because she takes what is traditionally a way to continue the oppression of a women and makes it an occasion meant to satisfy her own happiness.
...r the age of eighteen is not considered an adult. It has been proved that a person does not mature mentally until about age twenty one. Many basic adult rights are not granted to juveniles because they are not responsible enough to assume the role of an adult. It goes without saying that the law regards those under the age of eighteen as minors, and so these minors shall not ever be treated as an adult in a court of law. Three basic reasons that minors should not be tried as adults are the decreased mental capacity of juveniles, the basic adult rights are not granted to juveniles, and the fact that prison is an unsuitable environment for minors. Juveniles and adult do not have a parallel mental capacity; therefore, a juvenile should not be tried as an adult in a court of law, and should instead be subject to separate age-specific judicial procedures and legislation.
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.
To begin with an article title “digest crime control” it is said it that a chronic juvenile male or female offender can be tried in adult court depending on how violent the crime is. This was decision was made by the 8th circuit based on case that took place in the district of Nebraska. To summarize the case, it involved a mail offender who beats someone and let him die. When the autopsy came it was proven that 12 hour after he got beaten he could have been saved. The defense team for the juvenile said that the boy was mentally ill and didn’t know what he was doing. But when the circuit looked into his record they saw that this was his first offense with the law and that he had multiple battery charges filled against him for battery. So they circuit had to make the decision that if this wasn’t your first offense for the same type of crime you will be taking into adult court and get tried as an adult.
There have been many juvenile justice cases in the past that serve as precedents in the cases that go through today's juvenile court system. One very important case I will be discussing is New Jersey v. T.L.O. I chose to write about this case because it deals with the rights I have as a student. The argument eventually led to an agreement and understanding of how the Fourth Amendment applies to juvenile students on campus. This case relates to the student population due to the fact that it concerns an individual right and how it applies in a school setting.