The Rights That Juveniles Have - Essay Example

THE RIGHTS THAT JUVENILES HAVE AND THE ONES THEY LACK UNDER THE CURRENT LAW SYSTEM by Student’s Name       Code+ Course Name Professor’s Name University Name City Date The Rights That Juveniles Have And The Ones They Lack Under The Current Law System Juvenile crime was on the rise during the 80s, raising concern among the members of the public and various governments on how to curb such crimes. The federal government required the State and local governments to focus more on prevention of such crimes while avoiding punitive measures, but that did not just happen. The response to the increased juvenile crime has in the recent past led to the establishment of court processes that feature minor differences between juvenile and adult courts. During the mid 1990s, crimes committed by juveniles were on the decrease, but that did not bar the State governments from imposing tougher sentences on young offenders. Some of the tough measures imposed include punitive sentences, elimination of the confidentiality safeguards exercised in juvenile courts and expanded transfer into adult prisons. The rehabilitative model that was previously in wide usage has been dropped in favor of punitive models. The rehabilitative model focuses more on the needs of young offenders while giving little attention to the offense itself as opposed to a punitive model whose center of focus is the crime committed. Punitive models treat juveniles as adults, even though some juveniles lack the necessary support settings to help them develop into productive adults. The law system is therefore, caught in between a society that wants offenders to be punished and concerns over the healthy development of adolescents to avoid criminal behavior. Many authors continue to study the rights given to juveniles and the ones that are denied to them in an attempt to understand the current law system in the US (McCord et al., 2001). Juvenile Courts Juvenile courts are responsible for trying and convicting young offenders while criminal courts do the same for adults. Gault specified an impetus that can be followed to converge the procedures used in the two courts. Although the impetus is in existence, there continue to be difficulties in uniting “law on the books” and “law in action”. Most courts in various states deny juveniles the full panoply accorded to adults and at the same time fail to offer the protection that young people are subject to. This treatment leaves young offenders to experience the worst of both worlds. The procedures used by most states to try juveniles can hardly be agreed to by adults, regardless of the fact that in theory, juveniles are entitled to counsel assistance and a formal trial (Pound, 1910). Right to a Formal Hearing Juveniles have the right to a formal hearing that is given to adults. This right was established during a case involving Morris Kent versus the United States. Kent was charged with rape, housebreaking and robbery. The court in the District of Columbia authorized the transfer of Kent into an adult court only after a full investigation had been carried out. In doing this, the court denied Kent the right to a formal hearing and his attorney never got the chance to review his files. These circumstances led to the supreme court intervening to examine the details of the case. The case attracted much public interest and led to major changes in the US legal system as far as juveniles are concerned. Most hearings have happened before a judge and not a jury like it is typical for adult offenders. The case is argued between the juvenile's attorney and the witness or other involved parties before the judge makes the final ruling. The ruling may call for counseling, confinement in a juvenile detention facility, fines, payments, probation or a combination of any of the measures. Some judges also order post-deposition hearings to determine the progress in behavior of the offender (Myers, 2005). Some states have made it into a law for the supreme court to give an approval before any transfers are made from juvenile to adult detention facilities (Samaha, 2000). The Right to Advanced Notification of Charges In 1967, Gerald Gault 15, placed an “obscene” call to his next-door neighbor and was reported to the police by the neighbor concerning his offense. The police picked him up without notifying his parents. He was taken to a police holding facility and held for some time. At the time of pick up, neither Gerald or his parents were notified of the offenses committed. During the period in police custody, he was subjected to two court hearings and during both hearings, he was denied the right to an attorney and the neighbor never appeared in court. Gerald also confessed to his crimes to the police after being held for some time. In this case, it is evident that Gerald never knew what he was being taken in for until he arrived at the police station. Unlike adults, youngsters were never accorded the right to know their crimes before they are arrested by police officers. This case drew the attention of the supreme court, and the court decided that youngsters should be allowed the right to advanced notification of charges before they are arrested. That law was passed and is in use today (Bartol & Anne, 2011). The Right to Confront and Cross-Examine Witnesses In the Gault case, the victim was never given the chance to have the witness, who in this case was the next-door neighbor, cross-examined for the correctness of their testimony. The person to whom the crime was committed never appeared in court yet the hearing went on and judgment was made. Since that time, the supreme court decided that it would require witnesses to be available in any juvenile hearing for confrontation and cross-examination like they would in any adult court (Bartol & Anne, 2011). The Right to Legal Representation Kids have the right to legal representation when faced with a criminal charge. Like adults, juveniles must be allowed to use legal counsel of a law professional in fighting criminal charges leveled against them. This right was passed into law after Gault was denied the right to be represented by an attorney in his case against a next-door neighbor. Gault went through two legal hearings before being sentenced to six years in an industrial school. Juveniles who can afford an attorney have the right to go ahead and hire them to represent them in court and use their experience and expertise in the law field to fight the charges. Those who cannot afford an attorney must have the state appointing one for them to help with the process (Bartol & Anne, 2011). The Right to Parole Juveniles are considered as people who need help in the society to grow and develop into productive individuals. As such, the constitution disallows life sentences against juveniles without the possibility of parole in non-homicidal offenses. Cases that involve life sentences without the possibility of parole have been fought before in many states with Graham v Florida and Miller V Alabama being the key examples. In Florida, for instance, Graham was sentenced to life after he violated the terms of his probation by committing another house robbery. The states considered this a major violation of the law and sentenced him to life while denying him access to parole. The case would have ended there had Graham not stood up and decided to challenge the court's decision as being in direct violation of his constitutional rights. It is considered that life without parole for crimes that are non-homicidal is cruel and undeserved by juveniles. Crimes that do not involve taking lives or intentions to take life are much lighter compared to those in which life is taken. Juveniles are viewed as being incapable of grasping the full consequences of their crimes or even the crimes themselves and should be instructed and counseled by imposing less serious sentences on them (McKenney, 2011). In the case of Miller v Alabama, Miller's defense attorney argued that the life sentence was in violation of the law against the death penalty and life imprisonment without parole for juveniles. In this case, the American Psychological Association argued that juveniles are less culpable compared to adults and support Miller's argument. The APA says that the neurological development of youths is much lower compared to adults and that youths are faced with harder situations and decisions to make. According to APA, the brain region responsible for judgment and control of impulses is not in balanced communication like that of adults. In response, Alabama argues that the mitigation of the death penalty for juvenile offenders like Miller eliminates their lower culpability (Cornell University Law School, 2010). The Right to Speech School administrations and authorities are responsible for protecting juveniles entrusted to them from certain elements of speech that promote illegal drug use. Even though the First Amendment allows all citizens the right to speech, the right does not extend to students at school during school hours. This implies that schools can impose laws that restrict the use of speech or communication that promotes illegal drug use. This right received more light in the year 2006 in a case between Morse, a school principal and Frederick, a student. Frederick had unfurled a banner during a school event with writings saying “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS.” Morse regarded the banner as promoting illegal drug use, which was in direct violation of the school policy. In reaction to the banner, Morse instructed Frederick to take down the banner, but he refused, causing the principal to confiscate the banner and then suspend Frederick. Frederick filed a law-suit against Morse claiming that she was violating his First Amendment Right. The District Court ruled in favor of the school claiming that the school had not infringed Frederick's speech right. The arguments in the case pointed out that Frederick acted during school hours and stood directly opposite the school, which places him at the school (Justia US Supreme Court, 2006). The decision was, however reversed by the court of Appeals, which stated that the principal was not protected by immunity and that Frederick's banner was protected by the constitution. The argument here is that a student's right to speech is not lost when they are at school and must be respected (Denning & Taylor, 2007). The Death Penalty The constitution under the 8th amendment speaks against the execution of juvenile offenders. Under this article in the constitution, persons under the age of 18 or 17 in some states cannot be executed for committing murder or other capital crimes. In the United States, there are 30 states that speak against the execution of juveniles terming it cruel and unusual. However, there are arguments that postulate that the society has progressed a lot today, making it necessary to treat the 8th Amendment in a different way (Haider, 2005). Currently, 30 states in the United states have prohibited the execution of juveniles with 12 of the states eliminating the penalty in its system altogether. It is expected that more states will join in the quest of eliminating the death penalty on juveniles so that it can be preserved for a given class of crimes and offenders. The arguments state that juveniles are not the worst offenders and they must be treated with partiality if the state is to be considered decent. In the case of Roper v Simmons, Simmons was executed for the murder of Roper. Simmons had revealed his intentions to two other youngsters before committing the crime. He was arrested and waived his right to an attorney and confessed to the crime. He was 17 years of age at the time of the murder, something that made it challenging for him to be executed since the constitution disallows execution of juveniles. His family and neighbors pleaded for mercy, saying that he was a loving and responsible person capable of love. Since Summons had confessed to the crime and even accepted to be video-taped at the crime scene, there was no need for calling witnesses to the stand. The hearing moved to the closing phase where age was discussed as a mitigating factor. However, juveniles are becoming increasingly violent as they commit some of the most grievous crimes against the society. There may be need for harsher punishment for the harsher crimes juveniles continue committing. In fact, it is thought that some youths take advantage of their age to commit crimes. This thinking among some youths has made age be used against juveniles when making judgments against them (Haider, 2005). The Right to The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination In the case of Ropper v Simmons, Summons confessed to the crime and waived his right to an attorney. In some cases, law enforcement officers have been known to hold juveniles for extended periods of time to force them into confessing against oneself. According to the current legal system, it is illegal for officers to do that. Juveniles have the right not to testify against oneself or help with obtaining evidence or testimony that can lead to their conviction. One other case that really revolutionized this law is the Gault case, in which the juvenile was held in a police facility for long, prompting him to confess to the crime. The Right to a Jury Trial The United States' constitution does not grant juveniles the right to a jury trial. Juveniles are only subject to bench trials. This law however is only limited to first-time offenders or youths who do not get into criminal activities so often. If the youth is a habitual offender, the right to a jury is allowed. Denial to a jury hearing was emphasized in the case between McKeiver and Pennsylvania. The youths involved in the cases all requested to have a jury hearing, but their requests were declined by the supreme court stating that juveniles are not entitled to a jury trial (Ketcham, 1971). Right To Have the Case Proven Beyond Reasonable Doubt Juveniles like adults are afforded the right to have their cases proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Cases must be based on evidence and facts that prove that the juvenile actually committed the crime. Without such proof, the juvenile cannot be punished or “saved” as the prosecutors claim. A good example of a juvenile case where proof beyond any reasonable was required was in the “in re Winship 397 US 358”. In the case of Winship, the juvenile was arrested and presented before a court trial on the basis that a certain store employee saw him running away from a woman's purse shortly before the woman started claiming that she had lost money in the purse. The store employee did not see Winship taking the money, but rather saw him running from the scene. The New York Juvenile court sentenced him to a training school, but the decision was overturned by the Supreme Court citing that no proof beyond reasonable doubt could be provided by the store employee. Since that time, it became mandatory for all juvenile proceedings to ensure that the cases are proven beyond reasonable doubt before sentence is passed. ( Snyder & Sickmund, 1995. The Right to Conduct One's Life In the case of Meyer v Nebraska, the supreme court overturned the ruling stating that kids should be entitled to freedom to their lives (Bitensky, 1991). Right to Confidentiality of Records All court proceedings are normally documented properly for future reference. Juveniles have the right to have the records sealed and kept away from access by the public. However, regardless of the restrictions on access to records, certain individuals such as the juvenile themselves, court counselor, prosecutor, and parents, custodian, or guardian can have access without requiring a court order. The court may also authorize access by other parties, although further dissemination is not allowed. The Right to a Speedy Trial It is a constitutional requirement that case proceedings be done fast enough to allow the victim to go on with their productive life. This privilege or right is however not given to juveniles, but rather there are certain time limits placed on the period within which trials must be conducted from the time of arrest of the offender. Some cases are actually thrown out when the time limit is exceeded. There have been many promises from the federal government to make the waiting time shorter to avoid weighing on the psychology of the kid (Butts & Sanborn, 1999). Right to Bail Juveniles do not have the right to bail under the US constitution. The releasing of a juvenile to the parents is rather seen as an acceptable substitute (Siegel & Senna, 2007). Right to Self-representation The US constitution does not accord juveniles the right to self-representation as is the case with adults. Juveniles must be represented by an attorney that they select or one that is appointed by the state (Dawson et al., 1986). Conclusion To conclude, juveniles receive very different treatment in the US legal system as opposed how adults are treated. Adults are subject to more rights and privilege when going through a legal proceeding, which allow them flexibility and the possibility to win charges on a fair ground. Juveniles on the other hand, are manipulated and accorded little protection while at the same time denied therapy they deserve. As a result of these misfortunes, some researchers think that juveniles receive the worst treatment in the US legal system. Many reforms have been directed at incorporating more rights for juveniles in the system to achieve uniformity and equality. However, the rights given to juveniles are thought to be a measure to impose more punitive sentences on young people. The society somehow wants its young people punished more harshly than they are now. This could actually be necessary given the steady rise in the number of crimes committed by young people in the last few years. The crimes are becoming more and deadlier over time and age can no longer be used as protection from the law. Crimes need to be punished according to the full force of the law with minimum disparity, but in doing that, it should never be forgotten that youngsters are the generation of tomorrow and need to be corrected rather than punished. Therefore, lawmakers have a major problem in determining the crimes that juveniles should be punished for and the degree to which they should be punished (Myers, 2005). References List Bartol, C. R., & Bartol, A. M. (2011). Introduction to forensic psychology: Research and application. Sage. Bitensky, S. H. (1991). Theoretical foundations for a right to education under the US constitution: A beginning to the end of the national education crisis. Nw. UL Rev., 86, 550. Butts, J. A., & Sanborn Jr, J. B. (1999). Is juvenile justice just too slow. Judicature, 83, 16. Cornell University Law School. (2010). Eighth Amendment Sentencing Fourteenth Amendment Juveniles Cruel Unusual Punishment.Retrieved 16/11/2014 from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/10-9646 Dawson, R. O., Dix, G. E., & Parnas, R. I. (1986). Cases and materials on criminal justice administration (p. 369). Foundation Press. Denning, B. P., & Taylor, M. C. (2007). Morse v. Frederick and the Regulation of Student Cyberspeech. Hastings Const. LQ, 35, 835. Haider, A. (2005). Roper v. Simmons: The role of the science brief. Ohio St. J. Crim. L., 3, 369. Ketcham, O. W. (1971). McKeiver v Pennsylvania the Last Word on Juvenile Court Adjudications. Cornell L. Rev., 57, 561. McCord, J., Widom, C. S., & Crowell, N. A. (2001). Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Justice. Panel on Juvenile Crime: Prevention, Treatment, and Control. National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20418. McKenney, M. A. (2011). Impulse Control in Adolescents. Retrieved 16/11/2014 from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-7412.ZS.html Myers, D. L. (2005). Boys among men: Trying and sentencing juveniles as adults. Greenwood Publishing Group. Pound, R. (1910). Law in books and law in action. Am. L. Rev., 44, 12. Samaha, J. (2000). Criminal justice. Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. Siegel, L., & Senna, J. (2007). Introduction to criminal justice. Cengage Learning. Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (1995). Juvenile offenders and victims: a national report: preview. DIANE Publishing. Read More