Morris Kent Jr. vs. the United States Essay Example for Free

Morris Kent Jr. vs. the United States EssayAt the old age of 14 eld in 1959 he was reported to set about committed several offenses on housebreakings and attempted purse snatching. He was placed beneath probation on his mothers superintend with corresponding sociable services. At the age of 16 in 1961 he was reported to have committed housebreaking, stealing the house owners wallet, and raping her. afterwards which he admitted committing several offenses of the same manner. The waiver Kents mother, a lawyer, and a character reference worker from the fresh mash filed a petition to consider waiving the case while he was placed at the District of Columbia Receiving Home for children for a week. The trial and verdict He was convicted to six counts on housebreaking and looting but was acquitted on two rape counts by reason of insanity. The appeal Objections to fingerprinting exertion, absence to nonification of pargonnts, and salutes denial to the access on his social servi ces file. Petitioner also questioned the validity of the one week detainment at the District of Columbia which if an adult is already considered unlawful. The validity of the waiver which denies the petitioner the benefits of the up down hails pargonns patriae capacity (Howell 1998). Schall vs Martin The historyAt the age of 14 in Dec. 13, 1977 Gregory Martin was arrested with first degree robbery, second degree assault, and immoral possession of a weapon. Martin with two others allegedly hit a y byh on the head with a loaded gun. They then stole the victims jacket and sneakers. The procedure Martin evidenced of wish of supervision was based on possession of a loaded weapon, lateness of the hour, and false information on his address given to the police. He was detained for a total of cardinal days between the initial appearance and the completion of the fact finding. The trial and verdictMartin was found guilty on robbery and criminal possession charges. Since he was adjudicate d as woebegone, he was placed on two years probation. The appeal Objections were made on the pretrial detention of teenages implying greater abuses of law and power. Re Gault, re Winship, Mckeiver vs the State of Pennsylvania The cases Winship was a twelve year old boy in 1970 who entered into a locker and stole $112. 00 from a womans pocketbook. He was logical placed in a prepare school for an initial period of 18 months subject to annual extensions from the basis of preponderance of the evidence.Gault was 15 years old in 1967 when taken into custody as a result of a complaint that he had made lewd telephone calls. He was ordered to perform as a juvenile delinquent until he should reach maturity at the State Industrial School. Mckeiver was charged together with a gathering of 11 to 15 years with various acts of misde representors which arose from several demonstrations protesting school assignments and a school consolidation plan. The overt was excluded from the hearing for m ajor reason that the juvenile proceeding might make the trial into a fully adversary process.Each member of the juvenile group was considered a delinquent while placing each of them under probation. Analysis and recommendations The teenaged Justice Services Administration is responsible for the effective administration of the juvenile well(p)ice programs for delinquent and incorrigible youths which is being done in coordination with the juvenile courts. The identification of the needs of children facing delinquency leads to the invention and creation of the juvenile courts to go easy on young criminals.The rapid increased of juvenile evil and young people identified as at risk has created a furor on shocking juvenile crime statistics which resulted to a public outcry on the need for change in the management of young offenders in all of US states nationwide. This practically litigated some offenders in adult criminal courts. The argument details on young children who had committed violent crimes like assault, rape, murder and armed robbery which are often adjudicated in the same court as non violent offenders charged with shoplifting, burglary, and petty theft to drug offenses.The growing disillusionment of the therapeutic and ineffective approach of the juvenile justice system has resulted to appeals for a revision of its out-of-pocket process to transfer young offenders to adult courts and prisons. It has been the present societys desire to oppose rehabilitation and effect punishment. They firmly believed that the exemplar of the juvenile justice system has permitted young offenders to avoid accountability which led to its nonadversarial, decriminalized process where violent offenders were never separated and categorized according to the severity of their crimes.The court subsequently measures to provide guidance and rehabilitation of the child and protection for society not to fix criminal responsibility, guilt and punishment according to their parens patriae capacity. It seems that US is right off caught up with its own policy which seems to produce a rapid increase of juvenile offenders who are not amenable to rehabilitation who acts as criminals who happens to be children.The courts are now dealing on the crossroads of empowering themselves to consider amenability between children who blow and those children who commits an isolated criminal offense against the mandates of the juvenile justice court system. at that place is a marked dependency gelds within the jurisdiction of the court and for young offenders otherwise involved in the judicial system. The system which go tos to pose as an inviolate part of the national development process to protect the young and guard peaceful order in the system has created chaos because of its policy and practice of promiscuous justice for issues of social control.Most common practice is the treatment of e actually youth who violates the law is not labeled as a juvenile delinquent un less they were officially processed through the juvenile courts and officially adjudicated. But how can they be properly processed if at the start police interventions are already placing lax policies at stake? Is it a matter of policy makers and policies implementation? Or is it a matter of family emotional and authority interconnections that created the young person as he is today? The purposes and procedures of juvenile courts have become immerse on public reactions reflecting opinions on the system.To protect the rights of the young offenders, there must be a classification on matters of the crime that was committed. It is necessary to redesign a new youth justice system before it does to a greater extent public harm. childly offenders caught in the web of the existing criminal justice system shall be classified according to the severity of the crime that was committed through individualized assessment and proactive case management. there shall be a diverse menu of options whe re the institution shall be created solely for the young offenders.This is the day that the court get out treat crime as a crime regardless of the offenders age and the appropriate time that young offenders will hold accountability and experience the consequences of their acts. Young people who violate the law are no longer guaranteed special treatment simply because they are young but must be make grow according to the severity of the violations they had committed on separate juvenile institutions. The separate institution is simmer down a form of special treatment where the facilities and the education and training of the young offenders are to be thoroughly studied.Amidst the severity of the crime, young offenders will still continue to be cognitively, emotionally and socially different from adults. Therefore the detachment and the creation of a unique institution for them where they shall attend training and education inside and still receive diplomas for their education con tinues to serve them as citizens and young offenders. There must be a mother image or lesson assigned to a particular group of five or six children who will monitor their personal needs and really pose as a parent to them.Screening for the recruitment of mothers on this process must be very thorough and well maintained. When we say that young people are vulnerable to negative influences, we can justify the mother or parent issue by the model parent who constantly monitors and cautions for them and teaches them basic family values that may be more than what their biological parents could give largely dependent on the nature and characteristics of the model parent screening recruitment process. Why not try hiring Asians? Maybe a change of culture introduction will work for these offenders.When you are out of ideas on how to control them, we might as well try other cultures to experiment the effect. We might as well try blending policies and practices on the care management of these juvenile delinquents. There shall be no lapses over the rights of the child being tried in an adult court regardless of age on the basis of the severity of the crime because the institution to where he goes is not a mix adult one but a newly created institution that caters juvenile criminals for this matter.No fear of any adverse effect on social issues and negative adult influences because they interact with people of the same violent crimes and same age bracket. Or to modify court proceedings, since we already have classifications on the severity of offenses then it can move to create law appropriate for these juveniles who were criminally charged. However, the trials shall be done under and within the umbrella of the juvenile justice system with no act of favoritism on matters of age.So waivers on matters of jurisdiction may not pose a threat to committing mistakes on putting the child into the adult institution. The issue here is the willingness of the State to provide such juv enile penitentiary. The price and the budget appropriations will more or less equal to the budget on their drug abuse intervention offers. But if young offenders will be criminally hold accountable for their offenses then they will absolutely stop and start to manage their baby instincts which results from baby court policies and treatment of their offenses and age.The court is not justifying the act but is more on protecting the age which contributes to these young peoples confidence in passing time making crimes and get away with it because they are young which is very unreasonable and not applicable either in the family system more on the justice court system. The issue that serves to balance the recommendation is the factors that made this young delinquents abused their rights. Maybe there were too many rights given to them that the court cannot invade to create justice for the victims in that system anymore.They have made a perfect firewall on their policies that even them ca nnot manage to hack their own system to change. There shall be a modification with the justice system classification on young peoples offenses and put them right back on their tracks without getting their rights off. For once in their lives they should drive in the harm and damage they had done to their victims and make them pay for it in their unique form of institution. It is a matter of psychological state of war with these young people.The psychological warfare of which is already in their own advantage because of the juvenile justice system policies and practices. We love our children but we need to rear them right. Love does not only mean making them babies in treatment and in policies, they also need a little spanking when they err to understand the severity of their act. Love means care for their needs but still punishing them when they do things that poses harm to themselves, harm to their families and harm to the society.We have to stop the notion of making them think t hat what they are doing is still acceptable because of the governing family policies and juvenile justice system methods of treatment and rehabilitation. It is a matter of breaking their confidence now that they were made indestructible in court because of their age. The idea is to make them realize what they have done is immaterial to age but a direct violation of love and God. The institution will serve them right because they are properly taken cared of depending on the administration.Since national policy has been taking children out of their families because they dont trust parents to be effective anymore, which is due to their policy also, then putting then in a juvenile institution consisting of a large land, mother models, equip with schools for education and training when they err will put them in their places without taking out their right. It is a midway and the last recourse for these children. There will be no fear on part of the parents and no fear on part of the justi ce system.The kids now will serve their time studying and learning skills to get a animation after serving their sentences. Some cloggy offenses will require them to work within the institution as part of the training like foundry or what Don Bosconian students are doing. If you dont want to work and get trained 8 hours a day, then dont commit grave offenses. Just be a youth and live how a youth is supposed to live. It is a matter now of choice for these juvenile offenders.The knowledge itself that they have an institution to go wont make them go easy on their impulse acts and imaginations. It is like the idea of over feeding the child which makes him obese, protective policy will make him a criminal because nobody can touch him. It seems that the idea lies on the thought that the victim will fear more of being killed and raped by a juvenile offender because no justice can be absolutely derived from it. How can a nation maintain peace and order then when it disrupts respect for l aw and of the rights of the victim in the first place?We want to see the situation objectively. Reversing orders by judges is just not applicable but modifications on the juvenile justice system are what we have to look into deeply. It is time for a change and that change shall start now before certain events will turn to future abolition of the ineffective juvenile justice system. We just have to look at the head for the hills chart and analyze the policies and procedures involved in each processes. The theme is objective analysis and not favors.The only thing that will hold them from waivers and transfers to adult courts are the negative consequences of adult institutions for their age and shall not be based on their ages. Figure 1. Juvenile justice flow chart (Arizona 2006) References Arizona Supreme Court. (2006). Juvenile justice flow chart. Retrieved May 19, 2007 Website http//www. supreme. state. az. us/jjsd/jolts/FlowChart. htm Howell, J. C. (1998, January). NCCDs Survey of Juvenile Detention and Correctional Facilities. Crime Delinquency. Retrieved May 19, 2007 Website http//law. jrank. org/pages/12936/Kent-v-United-States. html