1. Juvenile Justice

2. Separation between adults and youth criminals are the norm today but not always the case
Adult punishments of today along with corporal punishment was administered
Minor offenses were given death sentences (forgery and horse theft)
Most of the capital punishments are given to adults today since 1988 but are not recognized in some states – some still sentence 16 year olds to death (14 states) but since they are “unconstitutional” they are just not enforceable

3. The court system was designed to “rehabilitate” the kids and not to punish them for their parents misdoings
Court tried a moralistic approach
1899 – Cook County, Illinois, - informal
The court used a system called parens patriae (parent of the country) – means that the court can decide the punishment for the child based on what they thought was good for the child
Different terms used: page 188

4. Courts are different today: 3 types of juvenile offenders
Delinquent, status, neglected and abused
Delinquent: act is a crime if committed as an adult
Status: acts that are not crimes (running away from home, being truant from school, and being beyond parental control.)
Status offenders are virtually never incarcerated for their first offense. But if they later violate a court order governing their behavior, they can be found delinquent
Habitual behavior and repeat offenders are usually characteristics of needing supervision other than parental
Neglected/Abused: court protection from parent or guardian
Controversy with parental responsibility laws or even parents being charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor

5. Juvenile
Before courts – anyone under the age of 7 – found to incapable of criminal intent
Children 7-14 seen as incapable unless they could be found to have known the act was a crime or done to hurt another
Most today are considered if under 18 – some 16 or 17
Some states try juveniles as adults for serious crimes
Judges and/or prosecutors make decisions as to whether or not to try in an adult court
Others go through a waiver hearing
Things considered are: past record, seriousness of crime, likelihood of rehabilitation before adulthood

7. Debate is this: if there is going to be harsher punishments and youths are being tried as an adult for offenses (get tough attitude) – should their even be a separate court system?
Are harsher punishments the way to go with all juveniles?

8. Robert Merton believes that there is a serious relationship between poverty and crime.
He feels that there are institutionalized paths to happiness in our society.
He believes in a society of equilibrium where goals = means

9. Pros
Those who favor keeping the death penalty for juveniles make the following arguments:
State legislatures should determine whether or not juveniles should be executed for capital crimes, not the courts.
Juries should determine the culpability of juveniles on a case-by-case basis, on the nature of the crime and the maturity level of the individual juvenile.
In a society, which is experiencing an increase in violence by juveniles, banning the death penalty would remove a much-needed deterrent.
What other countries do concerning executing juveniles should not be relevant to the court's consideration of what the United States Constitution demands.
Cons
Those who oppose the death penalty for juveniles make these arguments:
Executing children is immoral and uncivilized.
Scientific research shows that juveniles are underdeveloped and immature, particularly in the areas of the brain that dictate reason, impulse control and decision-making, and therefore should not be held culpable.
A high percentage of juveniles on death row have suffered from mental abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, drug addiction, abandonment and severe poverty.
The execution of juveniles is expressly forbidden in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights, the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

10. Today’s justice
By 1966 there was a revamp of the juvenile court system
Kent v. United States (1966) (holding that youth transferred to adult courts were entitled to a hearing, meaningful representation by counsel, and a statement of reasons for the transfer);
In Gault (1967) (holding that a youth subject to delinquency proceedings has the right to notice and an opportunity to be heard, to counsel, to cross-examine witnesses, and the right against self-incrimination);
In Winship (1970) (holding that a state must prove a youth guilty of charges beyond a reasonable doubt);
Breed v. Jones (1975) (holding that the double jeopardy clause prohibits states from transferring a youth to adult court after finding him delinquent
McKeiver v Pennsylvania (1971) jury trial not required in order to protect privacy of hearings

11. Facts of the Case - Winship
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 before the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Question
Does the requirement that juvenile convictions rest on "preponderance of the evidence" burden of proof, as opposed to that stricter "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold, violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause?
Conclusion
Yes. In a 5-to-3 decision, the Court found that when establishing guilt of criminal charges the strict "reasonable-doubt" standard must be applied to both adults and juveniles alike. The Court noted that by establishing guilt based only on a "preponderance of the evidence," as is customary in civil cases, courts were denying criminal defendants a fundamental constitutional safeguard against the possibility that their fate be incorrectly decided due to fact-finding errors. The Court concluded that mere variations in age among criminal defendants will not suffice to warrant the use of different burdens of proof so long as they all face loss of liberty as a possible sentence.

12. Breed v. Jones 421 U.S. 519, 95 S.Ct (1975)
In 1970, Gary Jones, age 17, was charged with armed robbery. Jones appeared in Los Angeles juvenile court and was adjudicated delinquent on the original charge and two other robberies.
At the dispositional hearing, the judge waived jurisdiction over the case to criminal court. Counsel for Jones filed a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the waiver to criminal court violated the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment. The court denied this petition, saying that Jones had not been tried twice because juvenile adjudication is not a "trial" and does not place a youth in jeopardy.
Upon appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an adjudication in juvenile court, in which a juvenile is found to have violated a criminal statute, is equivalent to a trial in criminal court. Thus, Jones had been placed in double jeopardy. The Court also specified that jeopardy applies at the adjudication hearing when evidence is first presented. Waiver cannot occur after jeopardy attaches.

13. Gault
In 1964, when Gerry Gault was 15, the police accused him of making an obscene phone call to a neighbor. He was placed in a detention center, and his parents were not told what had happened. When they finally found out, they were told he would have a hearing the next day, but neither Gerry nor his parents knew what he was accused of doing. At the hearing, a police officer testified about the neighbor's complaint because the neighbor did not show up. Gerry did not have a lawyer. He told the judge that he was innocent, and that one of his friends had made the call. The judge found him guilty and sent him to state reform school for six years. An adult found guilty of the same crime could have been sent to jail for no more than 60 days.
Gerry's case eventually went to the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices decided that his trial had been unfair and that juveniles deserve many of the same rights as adults. As a result, juveniles who are accused of crimes now have the following rights:

14. * to know what crime they are accused of committing
to remain silent
* to have a lawyer present during any case that might result in confinement
* to know what crime they are accused of committing
* to have parents or a guardian given adequate notice of the accusation
* to question witnesses
* to confront the accuser
* to have a prompt detention hearing
* to have a review hearing on an annual basis
Imagine you are Gerry and you are presenting your case to the Supreme Court. Using the list above, list at least four specific reasons why you think your trial was unfair. --
2. How might Gerry's case have been different if he had had a lawyer defending him? Do you think he would have received the same sentence? --
3. Why is it important for someone who is accused of a crime to be able to confront his or her accuser? --
4. Which of the rights listed above do you think is the most important? Explain your answer. --
5. Unlike adults, juveniles are not guaranteed the right to a trial by a jury of their peers. Do you think that is fair? Why or why not? How might it affect the outcome of a juvenile's trial? --
6. Adults are guaranteed a public trial, but juvenile trials are kept confidential to protect the accused. How might that rule help juveniles? How might it