Beckman
CJ Emilee 101 - Justice and Society
Final Exam
Review the following questions. Your answers must briefly and concisely respond to all
elements of each question. Question 1 is worth 60 points and question 2 is worth 40 points for a
total of 100 possible points. The completed questions must be turned in at the beginning of your
scheduled final exam period. Your responses should be typed, double spaced, and appropriately
referenced using APA format. I will not be accepting exams via email. Let me take this
opportunity to wish each of you continued success at Grand Valley State University.
Question #1 -
Within the context of our criminal justice system, briefly describe what these terms/cases mean
and discuss their use/significance within our CJ system.
A. Community Corrections Community corrections is an integral component of the Bureau's correctional programs.
Community corrections staff develop and administer contracts for community-based correctional
programs and serve as the BOP's local liaison with the federal courts, the U.S. Marshals Service,
state and local corrections, and a variety of community groups. Through the community
corrections program, the BOP has developed agreements with state and local governments and
contracts with privately operated facilities for the confinement of federally adjudicated juveniles
and for the detention or secure confinement of some Federal inmates.The BOP contracts with
residential reentry centers (RRCs), also known as halfway houses, to provide assistance to
inmates who are nearing release. RRCs provide a safe, structured, supervised environment, as
well as employment counseling, job placement, financial management assistance, and other
programs and services. RRCs help inmates gradually rebuild their ties to the community and
facilitate supervising ex-offenders' activities during this readjustment phase. An important
component of the RRC program is transitional drug abuse treatment (TDAT) for inmates who
have completed residential drug abuse program (RDAP) while confined in a BOP institution.
B. Probation Probation is the most common form of punishment in the United States. Although it is
administered differently in various jurisdictions, probation can generally be defined as a criminal
sanction where the convicted person is allowed to remain in the community rather than be
imprisoned as long as they follow certain conditions set by the court. Since 1913, probation has
been the primary form of supervision for anyone convicted of a felony in Michigan. Probation
may be imposed for misdemeanors and felonies except murder, treason, armed robbery, criminal
sexual conduct in the first or third degree, certain controlled-substance offenses, or felonies in
which a firearm was used. In recent years, on average, more than 50,000 adult felony
probationers in Michigan have been under the supervision of Michigan Department of
Corrections. While it is the responsibility of the MDOC to supervise adult felony probations in
Michigan, courts retain legal control over the offender. Beyond statutory probation, conditions
requiring the offender to avoid criminal behavior, not leave the state without permission, and
report as specified by the agent, the court is free to impose special conditions of probation based
on the offenders criminal and personal history.
Special conditions may require jail confinement, substance-abuse treatment, community
service, high school completion, restitution, fines, court costs, and supervision fees,
electronically-monitored home confinement, placement in a state-funded probation residential
center, and/or finding employment. Under strict policies and procedures of the MDOC,
probationers, parolees, and some prisoners are supervised by specially trained agents who
usually have post-secondary degrees in criminal justice or related fields. Some agents supervise
parolees (those who have been released from prison after serving their sentence); others
supervise probationers (offenders whose sentences are served while not incarcerated); some
supervise prisoners living in corrections centers or on electronic monitoring; and some agents
supervise all three types of offenders. There are also agents who supervise probationers and
prisoners who have completed Phase I of the departments Special Alternative Incarceration
(SAI) or boot camp program and who are returned to a community (in Phases II and III) for the
balance of their sentences.
C. Parole Parole is the conditional release of inmates from prison, but not from criminal justice
system supervision. Parole does not mean that the inmate is completely free. Parole is simply a
release from incarceration, where the prisoner is still under the custody and control of the state.
Approximately 80% of the inmates who are released each year are released on parole. The
origins of parole in the United States can be traced back to efforts in Great Britain, Australia, and
Ireland in the 1800s in an effort to move inmates out of prisons and back into the community.
These efforts typically were developed as a response to prison overcrowding, labor shortages,
and the costs of incarceration, being the main significance starting point.
D. Parole/Probation Revocation When offenders are released on parole, they are subject to specific conditions. The parole
conditions are designed to assist parolees in successfully readjusting to society, while protecting
the community. These requirements regulate behavior that is not criminal, but it is thought to be
linked to future criminality. Common standard parole conditions that most parolees must abide
include, abstaining from drugs and alcohol, completing random urinalysis tests, not associating
with other criminals, finding and maintaining employment, checking in with a parole officer as
scheduled, and not leaving the city or state without prior permission from the parol officer. Many
offenders must abide by parole conditions that are specific to their crime. Not all parolees are
successful. Many will have their parole revoked and will be returned to prison.
Parole can be revoked for one of two reasons. The first is the commission of a new crime.
The second is the failure to meet parole conditions. Parole revocations rarely occur as a result of
a single rule violation. The criminal justice system does not have the resources to initiate
revocation proceedings for every technical violation. Parolees often must show a consistent
pattern of noncompliance with their parole conditions to have their parole revoked. Most
revocations are the result of an arrest for a serious crime or absconding from parole supervision.
When parolees are facing revocation, they are not afforded all of the due process rights that they
would be granted in a normal criminal trial.
E. Pre-sentence Investigation -
A pre-sentence investigation (PSI) is prepared for persons convicted of serious crimes. In
misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor offenses, the court may order a PSI, whereas in felony
cases a PSI is mandatory. State and federal statutes set PSI requirements and are supplemented
by federal and state rules of Criminal Procedure. The pre-sentence investigation generally
consists of an interview with the defendant, a review of his or her criminal record, and a review
of the specific facts of the crime. The probation or court services department prepares a report
that contains all of this information and makes a recommendation to the court about the type and
severity of the sentence. The court always makes the final decision about the sentence, but it may
be limited by federal and state sentencing guidelines, which set standard sentences based on the
seriousness of the present crime and the previous criminal history of the convicted person. A
sentencing guidelines worksheet is often included in the PSI to assist the court in determining
whether to depart from the guidelines and enhance or reduce the severity of the standard
sentence.
If the court desires more information than is otherwise available to it as a basis for
determining the mental condition of the defendant, it may order the defendant to undergo a
psychiatric or psychological examination. Since the 1980s many states have allowed the victims
of a crime to participate in the pre-sentencing stage. Some states have victim loss or victim
impact forms that give crime victims an opportunity to make people in the criminal justice
system aware of the impact a crime has had on their lives. Victims are also encouraged to contact
the probation office and provide other relevant information for the PSI. A PSI often contains a
mix of public and confidential information. Information about juveniles and crime victims, as
well as psychological reports, are confidential and must be kept out of the public record.
F. Morrissey v. Brewer The United States Supreme Court ruled in Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) that a two-stage
revocation hearing must take place if a parole officer alleges that a technical violation has
occurred. The first stage consists of a decision by the parole board of whether there is probable
cause that a violation has actually occurred. If there is probable cause to suggest that a violation
has occurred, the parolee has the right to be notified of charges, to be informed of evidence, to be
heard, to present witnesses, and to confront and cross-examine witnesses. In the second stage of
the hearing, the parole board must decide if the violation is severe enough to warrant returning
the parolee to prison. During the past two decades, the number of parolees returning to prison has
increased substantially.
G. Trial Courts All cases heard by the judicial branch must begin in trial courts. The jurisdiction of these
trial courts is sometimes referred to as original jurisdiction, because of the requirement that all
cases originate in trial courts. It is in trial courts that witnesses are called to testify under oath
through the use of subpoenas and any physical evidence is presented to the fact finder, either a
jury or a judge. Because of this, trial courts are said to answer both questions of law and
questions of fact; while appellate courts reviewing cases from the lower courts answer only
questions of law. A trial court fact finder will determine whether or not a witness is credible and
if the testimony given established that facts in dispute. Trial courts, are required to keep records
of their cases through court recorders and/or court reporters that are able to provide verbatim
transcripts of court room activities accompany the official court files containing pleadings and
other legal documents. Courts of this types are called courts of record.
H. Parens Patriae The parens patriae doctrine maintained that the king had the right and responsibility to
care for minors. This doctrine is significant. Later it became an important concept in the
evolution of juvenile justice and governmental responsibility for neglected and abused children.
This concept continues today in practice where the state and the juvenile courts are now often
responsible for the well-being of children. Historical changes in the way children were perceived
and treated evolved slowly but facilitated the development of the juvenile justice system.
I. Juvenile Court Preliminary Hearing It is the role of the judge in a preliminary hearing to determine if there is enough
evidence against the defendant to go to trial. Judges use the probable cause standard when
deciding whether the case should proceed to trial. In other words, the judge must decide if the
government prosecutors have enough evidence to convince a reasonable jury that the defendant
has committed a crime. There are parts of a preliminary hearing that resemble a trial. Both the
prosecution and the defense are likely to make arguments to the court about why or why not a
trial should proceed. The government may call witnesses and introduce evidence at a preliminary
hearing and the defense may cross examine the witnesses and refute the evidence. Other issues
such as those about jurisdiction may also be decided at a preliminary hearing.
If, for example, the defendant does not believe the case has been brought in the right state
or federal court then the judge may decide that issue at the preliminary hearing. In states that
conduct preliminary hearings, the hearing is usually held as soon as possible after the defendant
is arraigned. Some states require preliminary hearings for all cases in which the defendant enters
a plea of not guilty and other states only require preliminary hearings if the defendant is charged
with a felony. Some states use a grand jury system instead of a preliminary hearing. A grand jury
system is a group of ordinary citizens who listen to the evidence produced by the government
prosecutors and determine whether or not there should be a trial. It is important to remember the
objective of a preliminary hearing. It is not the judges role at the preliminary hearing to decide
whether or not the defendant is guilty or not guilty of the alleged crime(s).
Instead, the judge must only decide if there is probable cause to believe the defendant
committed the crime(s). Even if the judge does find probable cause that the crimes were
committed by the defendant and the case proceeds to trial then a jury may still find the defendant
not guilty on all counts. If the judge finds that there is not probable cause that the defendant
committed the crime(s) then the case is usually dismissed. If probable cause is found then the
matter will proceed according to the rules of the court for the jurisdiction in which the case is
being heard.
J. Status Offense A status offense is behavior that is unlawful for children, even though the same behavior
is legal for adults. What transforms the conduct into a public offense is the age of the actor. The
most common status offenses are truancy, running away from home, incorrigibility (disobeying
parents), truancy, curfew violations, and alcohol possession by minors. There is wide public and
professional disagreement about the proper role of the juvenile courts in status offense cases. On
one side of the debate are childrens advocates and youth service providers who argue that status
offenders should receive treatment for family problems and that criminal justice sanctions,
particularly incarceration, are not appropriate. On the other side are frustrated parents who want
the juvenile court to discipline defiant children, law enforcement officers who want to be able to
detain truants and runaways, and juvenile court judges who want incarceration as a sanction to
enforce their court orders. Several factors complicate the task of forming sound public policy on
status offenses.
Some of these factors are as follows, many types of conduct are clustered into the status
offense category; each type of conduct may call for a different response from public and private
agencies, jurisdictions vary greatly in the ways they handle status offenses; some rely heavily on
juvenile court intervention while others divert most status offenses to youth service
organizations, and there are significant geographic differences in levels of service for status
offenders and their families; a void or shortage of these services may limit the policy choices
available to judges and policymakers. In the 1970s, this nation embarked upon a policy of
deinstitutionalization of status offenses, meaning that noncriminal minors could no longer be
locked in institutions and that they would instead be referred to an array of community services.
Today, this policy is being challenged. The challenge arises from claims that
deinstitutionalization has not worked and that runaway and truant youths need to be more tightly
controlled for their own protection. The challenge is also prompted by public concern about
violent juvenile crime and the perceived need for tough responses to all forms of youthful
misbehavior.
K. Judicial Waiver A judicial waiver occurs when a juvenile court judge transfers a case from juvenile to
adult court in order to deny the juvenile the protections that juvenile jurisdictions provide. All
states except Nebraska, New York, and New Mexico, currently provide for judicial waiver and
have set a variety of lower age limits. In most states, the youngest offender who can be waived to
adult court is a 17 or 18-year-old, although in some states, this age is as low as 13 or 14. Usually,
the offense allegedly committed must be particularly egregious in order for the case to be waived
judicially, or there must be a long history of offenses.
L. Juvenile Petition A juvenile petition officially charges a juvenile, or minor, with committing a criminal act.
A short statement of the facts regarding the alleged crime which is filed in court. The start of the
criminal process against juveniles, juvenile petitions are very similar to an adult criminal
complaint or arrest warrant. It is filed after the alleged crime has been committed but before the
trial. Each state has its own laws regarding who can file a juvenile petition. Most states agree that
prosecutors can file a juvenile petition. Police officers and the general public can also ask a
magistrate or local law enforcement official to file a petition.
Petitions notify the of court the specific crime a child is accused of committing. Juvenile
petitions also advise a child and her parent/guardian of the basic information needed to defend
her. Certain information must be contained within a juvenile petition. This information includes
the child's name, the date of offense, place of offense, the specific law that is alleged to have
been broken, a summary of the alleged crime, and the name of the alleged victim(s).
M. In re Winship In the case In re Winship, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the due process clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
before a juvenile may be adjudicated delinquent for an act that would constitute a crime were the
child an adult. Winship expanded the constitutional protections afforded by in re gault, in which
the Supreme Court ruled that minors accused of delinquent acts must receive notice of any
charges pending against them, and be given a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves
during a fair hearing in which they enjoy the Right to Counsel, the right not to incriminate
themselves, and the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses. Twelve-year-old
Samuel Winship was charged under the New York Family Court Act (NYFCA) with stealing
$112 from a woman's pocketbook, an act that would have constituted the crime of Larceny if
Winship had been an adult. At the conclusion of the proceedings against Winship, the family
court judge made a finding of delinquency by a preponderance of the evidence, the standard of
proof set forth in section 744(b) of the NYFCA. The judge acknowledged on the record that the
state had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. As a consequence for his transgression,
Winship was placed in a juvenile training facility for a minimum period of eighteen months.
Winship appealed the adjudication of delinquency to the New York Supreme Court (an
intermediate court of appeals in New York), where he challenged the constitutionality of the
NYFCA.
Winship claimed that he was denied due process because the NYFCA required the family
court to apply a quantum of proof less stringent than beyond a reasonable doubt. After the court
rejected this challenge, Winship appealed the case to the New York Court of Appeals (the
highest court in the state of New York. The court of appeals relied on the traditional distinction
between juvenile and criminal proceedings in explaining its decision to affirm the lower court.
State intervention in delinquency matters is traditionally justified under the doctrine of Parens
Patriae, a paternalistic theory of juvenile justice in which the government seeks to protect the
welfare of minors by providing wayward youth with medical help, counseling, discipline, and
other assistance deemed necessary by a court or by social services.
N. Gregg v. Georgia/Furman v. Georgia A jury found Gregg guilty of armed robbery and murder and sentenced him to death. On
appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence except as to its imposition for the
robbery conviction. Gregg challenged his remaining death sentence for murder, claiming that his
capital sentence was a "cruel and unusual" punishment that violated the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments. This case is one of the five "Death Penalty Cases" along with Jurek v. Texas,
Roberts v. Louisiana, Proffitt v. Florida, and Woodson v. North Carolina. No. In a 7-to-2
decision, the Court held that a punishment of death did not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments under all circumstances. In extreme criminal cases, such as when a defendant has
been convicted of deliberately killing another, the careful and judicious use of the death penalty
may be appropriate if carefully employed. Georgia's death penalty statute assures the judicious
and careful use of the death penalty by requiring a bifurcated continuing where the trial and
sentencing are conducted separately, specific jury findings as to the severity of the crime and the
nature of the defendant, and a comparison of each capital sentence's circumstances with other
similar cases. Moreover, the Court was not prepared to overrule the Georgia legislature's finding
that capital punishment serves as a useful deterrent to future capital crimes and an appropriate
means of social retribution against its most serious offenders.
Furman was burglarizing a private home when a family member discovered him. He
attempted to flee, and in doing so tripped and fell. The gun that he was carrying went off and
killed a resident of the home. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to death (Two other
death penalty cases were decided along with Furman: Jackson v. Georgia and Branch v. Texas.
These cases concern the constitutionality of the death sentence for rape and murder convictions,
respectively). Yes. The Court's one-page per curium opinion held that the imposition of the death
penalty in these cases constituted cruel and unusual punishment and violated the Constitution. In
over two hundred pages of concurrence and dissents, the justices articulated their views on this
controversial subject. Only Justices Brennan and Marshall believed the death penalty to be
unconstitutional in all instances. Other concurrences focused on the arbitrary nature with which
death sentences have been imposed, often indicating a racial bias against black defendants. The
Court's decision forced states and the national legislature to rethink their statutes for capital
offenses to assure that the death penalty would not be administered in a capricious or
discriminatory manner.
O. Marbury v. Madison On his last day in office, President John Adams named forty-two justices of the peace and
sixteen new circuit court justices for the District of Columbia under the Organic Act. The
Organic Act was an attempt by the Federalists to take control of the federal judiciary before
Thomas Jefferson took office.The commissions were signed by President Adams and sealed by
acting Secretary of State John Marshall (who later became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
and author of this opinion), but they were not delivered before the expiration of Adamss term as
president. Thomas Jefferson refused to honor the commissions, claiming that they were invalid
because they had not been delivered by the end of Adamss term. William Marbury (P) was an
intended recipient of an appointment as justice of the peace. Marbury applied directly to the
Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of mandamus to compel Jeffersons Secretary of
State, James Madison (D), to deliver the commissions. The Judiciary Act of 1783 had granted the
Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus to any courts appointed, or
persons holding office, under the authority of the United States.
P. Capital Punishment Capital punishment in the United States, in practice, applies only for aggravated murder
and more rarely for felony murder. Capital punishment existed in the colonies that predated the
United States and that were later annexed to the United States under the laws of their mother
countries and continued to have effect in the states and territories that they became. The methods
of execution and the crimes subject to the penalty vary by jurisdiction and have varied widely
throughout time. Thirty-two jurisdictions have banned it by law, others have suspended its use,
and others are trying to expand its applicability. There were 37 executions in the United States in
2008, the lowest number since 1994 (largely due to lethal injection litigation revolving around a
now resolved constitutional question). There were 46 executions in 2010, 44 by lethal injection,
one by electric chair (in Virginia), and one by firing squad (in Utah). Capital punishment has
often been a contentious social issue in the United States; while historically, a large majority of
the American public has favored it in cases of murder, the extent of this support has varied over
time, and there has long been strong opposition from some sectors of the population. While
public support today is substantially lower than it was in the 1980s and '90s, it has been largely
static over the past decade. A 2010 Gallup poll showed 64% of Americans favored it in cases of
murder, while 29% opposed it.
Q. Proportionality -
Proportionality has to do with the extent to which sanctions similar in severity are
imposed on offenders committing similar offenses. Proportionality, for traditional criminal
justice, satisfies a sense of retributive fairness; it is cruel and unusual to impose sanctions of
different severity on different offenders who have committed essentially the same crimes.
Restorative justice could impose disproportionate sanctions on offenders committing similar
offenses, since it allows different victims to place different demands on offenders who may have
committed similar offenses. Some victims may only want a simple apology, while others may
expect full restoration by the offender.
R. In re Kemmler This case arose from the first execution by electrocution in New York. The defendant
argued that his execution would constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth
Amendment, and that the Eighth Amendment should be incorporated against the States. The
Court noted that under the Eighth Amendment, punishments are cruel when they involve torture
or a lingering death. The punishment of death is not cruel, within the meaning of that word as
used in the Constitution; instead, the word "cruel" "implies something inhuman and barbarous,
something more than the mere extinguishment of life. The Court also noted that New York had a
counterpart to the Eighth Amendment in its state constitution, and observed that the state courts
had held that execution by electrocution would not constitute cruel and unusual punishment
under that provision, on the grounds that the act was passed in the effort to devise a more
humane method of reaching the result and that upon the evidence the legislature had attained the
object it had in view in the act's passage. The Court reasoned that, if it were to treat the state
courts holding as involving an adjudication that the statute was not repugnant to the Federal
Constitution, that holding would be "plainly right."
S. Intermediate Sanctions Intermediate sanctions are criminal sentences that fall between standard probation and
incarceration. Intermediate sanctions can include house arrest, intensive probation (i.e., probation
with more conditions beyond the basic conditions of standard probation), boot camps, electronic
monitoring, and drug treatment programs. Intermediate sanctions serve a dual purpose in the
criminal justice system. First, granting intermediate sanctions over incarceration helps reduce
overcrowding and eases the burden on our nation's prison system. Second, it helps to reduce
recidivism by targeting the behaviors of the defendants that led to the crime to begin with. For
example, if a drug user is afforded the opportunity to attend drug treatment rather than prison and
is successful, it is less likely that s/he will commit future crimes like possessing narcotics, and
even selling narcotics or participating in various theft offenses to support his or her drug habit.
Intermediate sanctions can be an effective tool if used appropriately. Individuals who are
actually interested in making positive changes in their lives can benefit from the additional
support; in turn, society benefits from having potential threats to the health and safety of others
transformed into productive citizens. Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult for judges to weed
out the defendants who want to change and the defendants who are merely looking for a "get out
of jail free" card. It seems, however, that the risk is worth the potential for reward, especially if
judges reserve these intermediate sanctions for non-violent offenders who are less likely to injure
others while out on release. After all, if they reoffend, defendants given the benefit of
intermediate sanctions will most likely be facing a hefty jail sentence if they violate their
probations, giving them an incentive to stay on the right path and giving the justice system
recourse if they fail.
T. Truth in Sentencing Truth in sentencing laws are enacted to reduce the possibility of early release from
incarceration. It requires offenders to serve a substantial portion of the prison sentence imposed
by the court before being eligible for release. Previous policies which reduced the amount of
time an offender served on a sentence, such as good-time, earned-time and parole board release,
are restricted or eliminated under truth-in-sentencing laws.The definition of truth in sentencing
laws and amount of time required to be served are primarily governed by state laws, which vary
by state. Although the time usually varies from 50% to 100% of the prison sentences, in most
truth-in-sentencing states offenders are required to serve 85% of the prison sentence. This is
influenced by the opportunity to receive federal funding for prisons. The U.S. Congress has
authorized incentive grants to build or expand correctional facilities through the Violent
Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive Grants Program in the 1994 Crime
Act. To qualify for the truth-in-sentencing grants, states must require persons convicted of a Part
1 violent crime to serve not less than 85% of the prison sentence. Along with other exceptions,
states may qualify by demonstrating that the average time served in prison is not less than 85%
of the sentence.
Question #2 -
What is the significance of In re Gault on the constitutional rights afforded to juveniles? Your
answer should include appropriate case summary and outcomes. What Constitutional
amendments did the United States Supreme Court focus on? As a result of this case, do juveniles
enjoy all of the same rights as adults or are there still differences? Explain.
In re Gault arose when fifteen-year-old Gerald Gault was arrested for making an obscene phone
call. After a series of summary proceedings, the Juvenile Court judge committed Gerald to the
State Industrial School until he was 21 or otherwise discharged by process of law. The Arizona
Supreme Court rejected Gerald's writ of review, upholding the juvenile court's ruling. The United
States Supreme Court accepted the case for the purpose of reviewing the adequacy of the due
process afforded by the Arizona delinquency proceedings. The Gault Court first reviewed the
history of the juvenile court movement. The Court recognized the salutary motives behind the
movement to create a separate juvenile justice system, but found that the urge to do good had led
to a system of juvenile justice that departed from traditional notions of due process: Accordingly,
the highest motives and most enlightened impulses led to a peculiar system for juveniles,
unknown to our law in any comparable context.
The constitutional and theoretical basis for this peculiar system is--to say the least-debatable. And in practice the results have not been entirely satisfactory. Weighing the benefits
and detriments of juvenile justice systems, the Court concluded that the benefits of allowing
juvenile court judges wide discretion did not outweigh the detriments. The Court narrowed its
inquiry to consideration of the physical confinement involved when a juvenile is detained.
Through its eloquent description of confinement, and its reference to existing juvenile court
proceedings as a "kangaroo court"',the Court expressed its view that juvenile detention is not
constitutionally different from adult imprisonment.The Gault Court stated that juveniles are
entitled to the full panoply of criminal due process protections: notice of charges, the right to
counsel, the right to confront witnesses, and the privilege against self-incrimination. This
decision is critical for the application of juvenile justice in this country. From this point forward
due process rights and privileges afforded to adults now must be extended to people under 18 as
well. Although the court did add certain stipulations to their decision.
Juvenile courts are not supposed to be run like criminal courts. They are supposed to help
juvenile delinquents become lawful adults by reforming them, not punishing them. For this
reason, Arizona's juvenile courts did not give juvenile defendants the same constitutional rights
as criminal defendants.Justice Potter Stewart filed a dissenting opinion, which means he
disagreed with the Court's decision. Justice Stewart agreed that juveniles deserve rights during
their hearings. He disagreed, however, that they need the same rights as criminal defendants. The
whole purpose of the juvenile justice system is to treat juveniles differently than adult criminals.
Stewart feared the Court's decision would turn juvenile cases into criminal trials, sending
America back to the days when twelve-year-old boys were sentenced to death like adults.
Works Cited
Baily, Kathleen Ed.D., Baro, Agnes Ph.D., Crawley, William Ph.D., Yalda, Christine,
JD, Ph.D. (2011)Jusitce & Society An Introduction. Grand Rapids, Mi: Grand
Valley State University, School of Criminal Justice.