Question.2530 - REFLECTION PAPER ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS OVERVIEW The purpose of these papers is to present your well-articulated perspective and thoughts from reviewing significant cases in Juvenile Justice. These cases highlight the major legal and ethical issues within juvenile justice in America. You have 2 reflection papers for the course so you will have to write about 2 separate cases. INSTRUCTIONS Choose a case from the list provided below OR choose a significant juvenile justice case that interest you: 1. Kent vs. United States, 1966 - Due Process in Juvenile Waiver 2. In re Gault 1967 - Due Process applied 3. Mckeiver vs. Pennsylvania, 1971 - No Right to Trial by Jury 4. Breed vs. Jones, 1975 - Double Jeopardy applies in Waiver Proceedings 5. Yarborough, Warden vs. Alvarado, 2004 - Application of Miranda Rights to Juveniles 6. Schall vs. Martin, 1984 - Allows Preventative Juvenile Detention 7. Roper vs. Simmons, 2005 - Capital Punishment 8. Sante Fe Independent School District vs. Doe, 2000 - Prayer in School 9. Tinker vs. Des Moines School District, 1969 - Free Speech at School 10. Ingraham vs. Wright, 1977 - Due Process in Corporal Punishment 11. New Jersey vs. T.L.O., 1985 - Search and Seizure at School 12. Veronia vs. Acton, 1995 - Drug Testing Address the following in your paper: ? The facts of the case ? The legal issue ? The holding ? The rationale ? The case significance ? Any ethical issues ? How would you address the case from a Christ-centered perspective (support your perspective with scripture)? Your paper must be a minimum of 5 pages, excluding the title page and reference list. Each section, from the facts to Christ centered perspective, is effective and labeled. Information flows in an organized and meaningful manner. The paper must follow current APA format and include a minimum of 3 references. There is a clear and meaningful connection between all the resources. It must be well-organized and be reflective of your thinking and struggles in these very complex areas of juvenile justice.
Answer Below:
Case 1: Schall vs. Martin, 1984 - Allows Preventative Juvenile Detention The facts of the case In this case, the defendant named Gregory Martin was arrested and charged on Dec, 13, 1977 with criminal possessions of weapon, first degree robbery and second degree assault at the time of incident. Martin was 14 year old when he had possession of the gun at the time of arrest. The incident happened around 11.30 p.m. He mislead to the police on where he lived and with whom. On Dec 14 th , he was presented in the New York’s Court under charge of lack of supervision while evidencing, lateness of the hour, possession of loaded gun as the reason why he should be detained under § 320.5(3) (b). The court approved detention under New York Family Court Act (FCA). The other two members i.e. Kenneth Morgan and Rosario were also detained and both were 14 years of age (LEXIS NEXIS, 2021). The legal issue The legal issues for this case was the violation of § 320.5(3)(b), which is due process clause under constitution was valid. The response to the case, there was no violation held. Martin tried to bring habeas corpus action to the District court of US for the judgement declaring § 320.5(3)(b) to be unconstitutional in due process along with equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. However, the district court argued to reject the equal protection to be weak but said that due process clauses were considered violation in order to release all the class members who were detained under the statute. The holding The final holding of the case was that 320.5(3) (b) is not considered to be invalid in the due process clause of 14th amendment Pp 263-28.The prevention detention of juveniles was considered legitimate purpose held in every common state. The detention would protect the juveniles and society from the danger of pre- trial crime. The objective decides by the court seems to be fundamental fairness claimed by due process clause. Therefore, since pre-trial detention is not considered to be punishment because the juvenile is discharged on the subject to put on probation. The case was terminated earlier to fact-finding but does not pursue the decision to arrest the juvenile pursuant. The rationale The rational of the case determines that Martin , who was charged against hitting youth with loaded gun where US Supreme court step backward in ensuring equal protection under due process clause of juvenile law. The New York Family Court Act held the section stating that sanctioning preventive detention would prevent the youth to repeat the crime again if released. So, accused delinquents detention is constitutionally valid under 320.5 (3) (b)i.e. due process clause (Oyez, 2021). The case significance The significance of the case lies in settling the ruling dispute whether the preventive detention is constitutionally valid or not for the juveniles. The US Supreme Court could hold the decision for the juveniles rather step backward to put efforts in providing protection to juveniles and adult American alike under due process clause. This case was further transferred to the New York family court, where the preventive detention was sanctioned for the delinquents and was valid constitutionally. It reflected the importance that in the safe interests of society and people, the statute provided under prevention detention of juvenile present a serious risk to the society and they might commit another crime before trial so this case served to be legitimate state objective. Any ethical issues There was no such ethical issues occurred in the case. The accused was found guilty for what he was punished as trial and pre-trial detention was justified. Christ-centred perspective In this case, the juvenile is possessing gun but has not committed any crime. But the possession of gun is considered as an act of violation of sanctity in Christianity. The juveniles are not expected to possess these kinds of weapons. According to Christianity, shame punishments are considered more useful than preventive detention. The juveniles should be punished in front of public so that they will regret their decision and understand the severity of their crime. As they have not used those weapons, then the mere possession of those should not be seen as a major threat to the society. Case 2: Roper vs. Simmons, 2005 - Capital Punishment The facts of the case In the case of Roper v. Simmons, the Supreme Court of US granted review on the constitutional death punishment for juvenile defendants (especially under age 18 years at the moment of crime). The case was about Christopher Simmons who committed a murder of Shirley Crook and charged for sentenced to death. At time of committing crime his age was 17 years old. He was found guilty with first degree murder and a death penalty. However, in 2003 after he was found guilty, the Missouri Supreme Court reconsidered the case and invalidated the death sentenced. The court dogged that juvenile’s capital punishment violated8th amendment’s provision against odd punishment under ‘Evolving Standards of Decency Test’. The US Supreme Court heard the case and upheld the death punishment for crimes by juvenile under 16 – 17 years age (American Psychological Association, 2021). The legal issue The legal issues under this case were doing the eight Amendments forbid the obligation of the death punishment on juveniles who fall under 18 years of age. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) was observed to be the landmark decisions in US court where imposing death punishment for crimes committed by character below 18 years of age was unconstitutional. Ten years back, the US court initially abolished the death penalty; the decision of the court became barbaric issues in criminal history. The holding The judgement in this case was that decisions issued on March 1 , 2005 ruled 5-4 for being illegal to compel death punishment for crime committed by child below 18 years of age. The standards of decency have evolved and majority of consensus was against the juvenile death penalty cited among state legislature. The rationale The rationale for this case discusses about the abolishing the juvenile death penalty. The due to barbaric occurrence of people in criminal justice history, it was allied in every nation that practice of juvenile death sentences would be ended. The majority of the opinion of judge’s bench referred that teenagers lack the responsibility and maturity, so the unusual and cruel punishments was seen to be prohibited. The case significance The importance of the case lies in the facts that by invalidating the death sentences for juveniles the supreme court tried to build a consensus on adolescents lack of maturity, vulnerability caused due to unconstructive influences, imperfect character development and absence of responsibility was major reason behind the granting the evolving standards of decency in guarantee degrading punishments even to convicted criminals (Legal Information Institute, 2021). Any ethical issues There was no such ethical issues occurred because the US court already prohibited the crimes committed by children below age of 18 would not penalised to death. Christ-centred perspective In earlier times, Christianity strongly opposed death penalty in every case. They never wanted an eye for an eye as this way the whole world will become blind. They believed in compassion for the others. And in the case of any juvenile committing this heinous crime, they still want to give them chance to repent and ask for forgiveness from the God. Juveniles are vulnerable and are not fully matured so they should be given the chance to change themselves. One should never murder other human beings and it is condemned in this religion. Strict punishments should be given to the criminal but they do not support capital punishment. References American Psychological Association. (2021). Roper v. Simmons. https://www.apa.org. Retrieved 28 September 2021, from https://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/roper. Legal Information Institute. (2021). ROPER V. SIMMONS. Law.cornell.edu. Retrieved 28 September 2021, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-633.ZS.html. LEXIS NEXIS. (2021). Schall v. Martin | Case Brief for Law School | LexisNexis. Community. Retrieved 28 September 2021, from https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-schall-v- martin. Oyez. (2021). Schall v. Martin. https://www.oyez.org. Retrieved 28 September 2021, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1983/82-1248.More Articles From CRIMINAL LAW MANAGEMENT
.ico)
.ico)
.ico)
.ico)
