Double Murder by 11-Year-Old Boy in Pennsylvania - Case Study Example

Criminal Court Case al Affiliation: Criminal Court Case Jordan Brown was a twelve year old boy when he was accused of double murder in Pennsylvania in 2009. He was the said killer of a pregnant woman, Houk Kenzie, his father’s fiancée who was found in bed with a bullet in her skull. The shooting was done by a youth shot gun. Jordan committed this crime when he was eleven years old and he became a suspect, a year later after investigations. The legal experts deemed this case as of one of the youngest suspects to be charged with murder in the country. Thus, double murder comes in when one covers the fetus in the victim’s body. In May 2009, Jordan pleaded not to be guilty to all the charges laid to him. In Pennsylvania, there is no provision in the law for the lower limit of age when it comes to conviction or rather being charged with homicide. However, Jordan’s case was reconsidered and treated as a minor. The case ended up in a juvenile court where the court ruled that the boy should be rehabilitated at a juvenile lockout. After a year, the family, friends and the attorney brought attention to the case as a series of court hearings became underway. The family arranged a fund-raising for Jordan’s defense as they claim he was innocent and the trial to be moved to the juvenile court. Jordan’s attorney’s request of moving the case to the juvenile system of trial awaited the judge’s decision in May the following year. Moreover, the attorney, Elisco Dennis struggled for decertification since he felt like Jordan was amenable to the juvenile trial system. Immediately after his arrest, Jordan was taken to an adult prison but later the authority transferred him to a juvenile facility in March where rehabilitation is given priority. As argued by his attorney, an adult jail could not accommodate a minor; eleven-year-old kid. According to Pennsylvania laws, Jordan is said to have violated two laws. First, Jordan committed murder of the unborn child. The death of the victim caused the death of the unborn child. Jordan being the cause of the victim’s death, it is obvious or rather clear that he also committed murder of the unborn child in a homicide. Hence, the law provides for a harsh sentence in circumstances or rather in such cases despite the age of the accused. Secondly, Jordan had committed murder of an adult in cold blood when he shot dead the twenty four year old Kenzie. Under the senate bill number 850, Jordan is a criminal under the age of eighteen who is supposed to be charged with murder of an adult and of an unborn child. Moreover, from chapter 25 of Pennsylvania laws, under section 2501 (the criminal homicide), Jordan is guilty of homicide since he is an accomplice in perpetration of felony which caused the death of Kenzie. Thus, this criminal homicide is classified as a murder of the second degree, according to section 2502 of Pennsylvania State laws. A murder criminal under the age of eighteen years, according to the Pennsylvania State Law in section 1102, the possible penalties for such a crime is life imprisonment or death sentence in accordance with section 9711 which relates to the sentencing procedures of the first degree murder. In addition, the sentence of a criminal who is convicted of a murder of unborn child is similar to the sentence for any ordinary murder except the death penalty cannot be imposed. When the court considers the homicide a second degree murder, the criminal will be sentenced to life imprisonment according to section 1102 of the criminal act. Therefore, Jordan’s case falls under the second degree murder. Being under the age of eighteen years old, life imprisonment without parole is the most probable sentence for Jordan since juvenile criminal trials advocates for juvenile lockout for up to twenty one years after which he can be transferred to an adult jail. As much as juvenile rehabilitation centers exist in Pennsylvania, murder criminals, as stated by the law must be tried in adult courts and convicted the same way the adult murder criminals are convicted. Jordan’s murder case was heard in the State court. All the cases that are heard by the State court, both civil and criminal, have something to with general violation of the laws which are being kept or rather implemented by the State’s Legislation system. Murder or rather homicide is a criminal case according to the Pennsylvania State. Pennsylvania’s legislation system has several sections which make up the criminal homicide act. Thus, when Jordan committed a homicide, he violated one of the State’s Laws against homicide. The state courts have a broader jurisdiction. As compared to the federal courts, the state courts cover cases which involve individual citizens whereas the federal courts covers cases that mostly involved the nation. It was necessary for the case to be heard in the state court’s system since Kenzie’s murder had everything to do with the state’s laws since it involved a citizens and not the government. Being the keeper and enforcer of all the state’s laws, the state court had all the rights to listen to Jordan’s case and give a verdict according to the criminal homicide act of the state since the murder involved the citizens from the state. Jordan Brown was found guilty, according to the county judge’s ruling, of criminal homicide and first degree murder of his father’s fiancée Kenzie Houk. At the juvenile lockout, the court decided that the boy’s status would be reviewed after every six months. The county judge closed the case simply because of Jordan’s age during the killings. He ruled that the accused was a minor by then and a juvenile lockout would perfectly work or rather suit him for the purposes of rehabilitation. Initially, the state court denied to move the case to the juvenile court since there were no tangible evidence which connected any individual to the killings and Jordan’s refusal to admit being guilty narrowed his chances of being taken to juvenile rehabilitation. It is clear that the judge made a ruling to rehabilitate the boy at the juvenile rehabilitation center. The outcome of the judge was justified since under the Pennsylvania law, Jordan has to undertake a life imprisonment sentence. However, the judge’s decision to give the boy an equivalent juvenile sentence is on point because the state’s law has no provision for minors being jailed together with the adults. In addition, the juvenile court’s decision, as much as they delivered their verdict according to an assumption of Jordan being the only suspect that could have shot Houk, was a move to protect the boy against angry citizens or relatives. References Mandak, J. (2012). Jordan Brown Guilty: 11 year old murdered dad’s pregnant fiancée. Crime. Huff Post. Retrieved From: http://www.huffingtonpost.com Bodenhom, H. (2009). Criminal Sentencing in 19th century Pennsylvania. Explorations in Economic History, vol.46, p.287-298. Print Onecle. (2007). Chapter 25: Criminal Homicide. Pennsylvania Statutes. Retrieved From: http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/crimes-and-offenses/00.025.001.000.html Read More