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

Morris Kent Jr. vs. the United States EssayAt the jump on of 14 days in 1959 he was reported to have move several offenses on housebreakings and attempted udder snatching. He was set(p) under probation on his mothers cargon with corresponding social services. At the age of 16 in 1961 he was reported to have committed housebreaking, stealing the house possessors wallet, and raping her. After which he admitted committing several offenses of the same manner. The expiration Kents mother, a lawyer, and a oddball worker from the fresh judicature 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 robbery barely was acquitted on two rape counts by crusade of insanity. The speak to Objections to fingerprinting proceeding, absence to notification of parents, and courts denial to the access on his social services file. Petit ioner in any case 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 new- stir courts parens patriae capacity (Howell 1998). Schall vs Martin The historyAt the age of 14 in Dec. 13, 1977 Gregory Martin was arrested with first compass point robbery, second degree assault, and condemnable possession of a weapon. Martin with two others allegedly hit a spring chicken on the head with a loaded gun. They and so stole the victims jacket and sneakers. The operation Martin evidenced of lack of supervision was based on possession of a loaded weapon, lateness of the hour, and false breeding on his address given to the law of nature. He was detained for a total of fifteen days between the initial appearance and the completion of the fact finding. The trial and verdictMartin was found guilty on robbery and unlawful possession charges. Since he was adjudicated as delinquent, he was placed on two years probation. The appeal Objections were make on the pretrial detention of new-mades 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 cleaning womans pocketbook. He was ordered placed in a training school for an initial finale of 18 months subject to annual extensions from the basis of preponderance of the evidence.Gault was 15 years old in 1967 when interpreted into custody as a result of a complaint that he had made lewd speech sound calls. He was ordered to perform as a jejune delinquent until he should reach adulthood at the State Industrial School. Mckeiver was charged together with a group of 11 to 15 years with various acts of misdemeanors which arose from several demonstrations protesting school assignments and a school consolidation plan. The public w as excluded from the hearing for major reason that the new-fangled proceeding mightiness make the trial into a fully adversary suffice.Each piece of the juvenile group was considered a delinquent while placing each of them under probation. Analysis and recommendations The Juvenile nicety Services Administration is responsible for the military issueive administration of the juvenile judge programs for delinquent and incorrigible teenage persons which is existence make in coordination with the juvenile courts. The identification of the necessarily of children facing delinquency leads to the invention and creation of the juvenile courts to go easy on newborn criminals.The rapid increased of juvenile detestation and young plurality identified as at risk has created a furor on shocking juvenile wickedness 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 offensives bid 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 evaluator system has resulted to appeals for a modification of its due cultivate 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 framework of the juvenile umpire system has permitted young offenders to avoid obligation which led to its nonadversarial, decriminalized process where violent offenders were never separated and categorized concord to the severity of their crimes.The court subsequently measures to provide focusing 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 now caught up with its own indemnity 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 err and those children who commits an isolated criminal offense against the mandates of the juvenile justice court system. There is a marked dependency issues within the jurisdiction of the court and for young offenders other involved in the judicial system. The system which serves to pose as an integral part of the national suppuration process to protect the young and maintain peaceful order in the system has created chaos because of its policy and practice of informal justice for issues of social control.Most common practice is the interference of every youthfulness who violates the law is not labeled as a juvenile delinquent unless they were officially processed by means of the juvenile courts and officially adjudicated. But how can they be powerful 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 moldiness be a classification on matters of the crime that was committed. It is necessary to redesign a new youth justice system before it does more public prostitute. Young 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 individualize assessmen t and proactive case management. There shall be a diverse menu of options where the ecesis shall be created solely for the young offenders.This is the day that the court bequeath treat crime as a crime regardless of the offenders age and the distract time that young offenders result hold accountability and experience the consequences of their acts. Young mickle who violate the law are no longer guaranteed special handling simply because they are young but must be disciplined according to the severity of the violations they had committed on separate juvenile institutions. The separate institution is calm down a form of special manipulation 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 separation and the creation of a erratic institution for them where they shall attend training and education inside and still receive diplomas for their education continues to serve them as citizens and young offenders. There must be a mother image or model designate 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 electro damaging influences, we can justify the mother or parent issue by the model parent who ever monitors and cares 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 mig ht as well try amalgamate policies and practices on the care management of these juvenile delinquents. There shall be no lapses over the rights of the child beingness 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 impertinently 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 markting the chi ld into the adult institution. The issue here is the willingness of the State to provide such(prenominal) juvenile penitentiary. The cost 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 responsible for their offenses then they will absolutely stop and start to manage their baby instincts which results from baby court policies and give-and-take 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 getting 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 likewise many rights given to them that the court cannot invade to c reate justice for the victims in that system anymore.They have made a perfect firewall on their policies that even them cannot 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 know 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 warfare 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 heat our children but we need to rear them right. sack out 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 caring for their needs but still punishing them when they do things that pose s harm to themselves, harm to their families and harm to the society.We have to stop the notion of making them think that 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 long-lived 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 justice system.The kids now will serve their time studying and learning skills to get a life after serving their sentences. approximately grave 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 happy 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, overprotective 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 j ustice can be absolutely derived from it. How can a nation maintain peace and order then when it disrupts respect for law 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 seem into deeply. It is time for a change and that change shall start now before received events will turn to future abolition of the ineffective juvenile justice system. We just have to look at the flow chart and analyze the policies and procedures involved in each processes. The theme is objective depth psychology 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 (genus 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