What would you like the juvenile justice system to look like by 2040?

I would like to see all court proceedings on-line, including the Supreme Court. The criminal court would be presented in a way that reduces bias. The facts of the crime are presented and mitigating and aggravating facts are presented - race and sex of accused are withheld, only then can justice be blind.To complement this online court an amicus curiae will be able to be filled by everyday people on rulings of the court in the form of a discussion ,much like this one. I think the imprisonment of the innocent will be reduced. The juvenile section of criminal justice is going to be re-vamped to help the person they will become- not so much focus on where they have been and the mistakes that they made.It is my hope that the child will be granted the same rights as the adult in court- at least a jury trial. I feel that the society will be recorded at all times in public- we are almost there now. I also feel that no matter what advances are made in criminal justice there will be crime because people are emotional beings and often these emotions overrule cognitive ability. The advances towards a just society are always going to have the downfall of the conflict theory. That being said , I also feel that there will be a minority shift within the conflict theory- meaning that affluent white people are going to loose their power, become underrepresented in congress and become the minority in the population. This flip is going to provide for a reverse-racism type scenario. I could be wrong, Maybe we will eliminate racisim and get the balance of justice right in the near future.The choices we make today are going to carry us headfirst into the future. We would be wise to give thought pre-action than to give regret post-action. p.s. I have truly enjoyed all the posts of the class. Thank you for making this a great class - I learned so much from yall! It's Priceless! : )

Koban Adoption: Juvenile Justice

When you see and are involved with a child growing up in your neighborhood you become a part of that child's life. You know the family and life history of the child. The inter-dissociation of communities causes the breakdown of the foundations that supports the forming of healthy children. When neighbors keep silent about the abuse or neglect of children the child gets hurt. Then the community is surprised when tragedy occurs or when the child lashes out. In cases of juvenile crime - I suspect there are indicators in the child's life that point to the causation of the crime.
The "not my problem or not my business" attitude of society exacerbates the breakdown of the society. When the juvenile has contact with the justice system there is few , if any in the system with a personal knowledge or care (not that no one cares ,but caring as in the "I know you, son- you are better than this" sense) for the youth. This leads to a misunderstanding of the lashing out that many youths are involved in. Intervention before the youth lashes out would be a help to society today.
To identify at risk kids requires an in depth involvement in the communities and the family's that make up the communities.Such is Japans Koban. Japan has the lowest crime rate - The book did not incorporate Japan in to the chapter. I am confused by this omission because what they are doing is working. "Japan’s Koban system is regarded as one of the important factors that contribute to the maintenance of a safe and peaceful society. The key operating principle of the Koban system or community policing is that the Police should work closely with the community. Officers in Kobans set up in locations all round Japan, provide basic police services, keep watch, respond to emergencies, give directions, or otherwise interact with citizens on a more intimate basis than they could from a more distant station.?By working with the community, the Koban officers earn the public’s trust." http://www.sg.emb-japan.go.jp/bi_KOBNSpeech_09.htm
The adoption of a Koban type of policing would benefit today's American society. The involvement of caring people of the community working with police can help the youth..
Did you ever have anyone in your life other than family who cared about you and changed you life for the good? Many youthful offenders will never have this, until it is too late. I affirm with deep sincerity that it does "take a village" to raise a child.The foundation the community gives the child can be the best tool to overcome peer pressure and absent minded, careless decisions that lead to tragedy in the child's life.

Criminal District Court Interview

Dana Cowan
Interview
Honorable Judge Jackson
Criminal District Court



This article is a report on an interview with Honorable Judge Jackson of the xxxth Criminal Court. Judge Jackson is female and a minority of African American-Hispanic lineage. She is also the single mother of two sons. She is a 1998 Graduate of Texas Wesleyan School of Law. Her family background has contributed to who she is today. She was brought up with her father being in the military. She was exposed to many cultures and traveled often. She stated that she “always knew I was going to go to law school”. From her youth she had this goal. Judge Jackson attributes her father with her lack of bias and gift of open mindedness. This is the adventure I embarked upon with this interview.
The xxxth Criminal Court is located on the xxth floor of the County Criminal Courthouse. Upon arrival to the Criminal Courthouse I was welcomed with metal detectors and the removal of my shoes. My bags were scanned and I recall thinking this was comparable to airport security. Although I was not boarding a plane I was taking a trip into the complex criminal justice system, as I was walking to the elevators the thought in my mind is that people’s lives are altered and even ended in these courts. The courts have authority over a range of infractions of the law from small drug cases to murder. These courts can dismiss cases as the smallest flex of justice and they can also go to the most severe flexing and call for justice, the death penalty. I entered the xxxth courtroom and witnessed court about to be in session.
The U.S. and Texas flags hang in front of the fine wooden paneling behind the Judge’s bench honorably framing the metal state of Texas seal. The court is formal in appearance and the attorneys are making small conversation. The defense announced “ready for trial” followed by the state’s announcement “state’s ready for trial”. Honorable Judge Jackson enters the court and people stand in respect. The attorneys immediately approach the bench while the defendant is brought in. The defendant is a Hispanic male wearing an orange jumpsuit that reads county jail on the back. The cause number is read and the habeas corpus is explained to the defendant. The translator repeats the charges to the defendant in Spanish. The defendant is asked if he understands the charges and he affirms. He pleads guilty. He is charged with possession of a small quantity of a controlled substance- a petty drug charge. The state recommends 6 months and Judge Jackson agrees with the state and allows credit for time served. The punishment is realistic to the crime committed. The sentence is in the terms of months, not years. After the cases are tried, Honorable Judge Jackson’s court bailiff shows me to Judge Jackson’s office.
Honorable Judge Jackson is a beautiful lady and this interview confirmed that her beauty is indeed inside and out. I noted the care she put in the replies and concern she expresses for all the people of her court including prosecutors, defense lawyers, victims and defendants. I proceed to the interview and ask Judge Jackson to describe what her job entails. Judge Jackson expresses she is an “elected official” and she is the “presiding Judge over the xxxth criminal court of xxxxxx county”. The xxxth court presides “over cases ranging from serious felony offenses, death penalty cases, and aggravated assault cases to drug cases.” Judge Jackson expressed that she has an upcoming death penalty case that has its own difficult challenges.

I was interested to find what her favorite aspects of this job are. Honorable Jackson affirmed that she likes the “ability to help people by offering probation and rehabilitation”. She believes in “community service and having the offender contribute to society”. When Questioned about the least favorite aspect of the job Judge Jackson gave voice to the difficulty she has with “decisions on tough cases” and dealing with the facts of the cases. This statement reminds me that Judges are upholding the law and representing the citizens of our country - Judges (at the end of the day when they leave the robe and the courts) are still compassionate and caring human beings. Another difficulty in this job is “mistrials” – the example of a capital murder case from January was given “It was tried again and the defendant was found guilty” the sentence was life in prison without the possibility of parole.
The question of racial issues being an issue in this job was met with the simple, yet affirmative statement “I rise above racism”. I do believe she rises above bias in any form with great integrity. The interview granted me insight to the court system. As we spoke (and as Judge Jackson sipped on her warm tea) she educated me on public defenders and the selection of public defenders for the court. She took her time to grant me an understanding of the prosecutors and the resources available to the public defenders.
As a single mother of two beautiful children, a female lawyer and a minority - Judge Jackson has indeed risen above all obstacles to become an admired success. Therefore, I do choose to support her and Judge Jackson will receive my vote. She has demonstrated to me a fairness and a sensibility in her rulings, in court and in person. Judge Jackson is a judge that Lady Justice honors by holding up the balanced scales.

Justice for Juveniles:Abolishing the System

                                                         Justice for Juveniles:Abolishing

the System

Dana Cowan

Abstract

This article reports that abolishing the juvenile court would produce a more just system of court for the juvenile offender. This article is in pro perspective of the abatement of the juvenile court. The failing Juvenile justice court system ceasing to be the avenue for the youth offenders is the research topic. The research question is what would be the the effects of abolishing the Juvenile Justice System in the United States. The findings in the research support the theory that the juvenile justice system provides a mere second-class criminal court for young people. The juvenile court is no longer the social welfare institution first intended, yet is a penal system that provides young offenders little justice (if any). This article will describe the effects of the combination of the juvenile courts with the criminal courts, and where the rights of the juvenile would be granted and improved.

The abolishing of the juvenile court and infusing it with the criminal court would produce a more just system of court for the juvenile offender. “When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”(1 Corinthians 13.King James Version). In the committing of crimes a youth proves within the act itself that they are no longer a child. In the case of young adults they are not able to defend themselves among adult criminals. That is not saying the result of abolishing the Juvenile Justice System would institute placing juvenile offenders in adult institutions. Rather, Abolishing the juvenile justice system would result in adult safeguards for the juvenile in the criminal courts, provide for jury trials, prevent the previous offenses to affect the finding of guilt (a right given to adults), omit status offenders from the criminal justice system and allow for the mitigating factor of youthfulness to be considered during sentencing.

B.Field finds in the 1997 article Abolish The Juvenile Court: Youthfulness, Criminal Responsibility, And Sentencing Policy “...explicitly punitive sentences do not require judges or correctional authorities to confine young people with adults in jails and prisons, as is the current practice for waived youths,[161] or to consign them to custodial warehouses or "punk prisons." States should maintain separate age-segregated youth correctional facilities to protect both younger offenders and older inmates. Even though youths may be somewhat responsible for their criminal conduct, they may not be the physical or psychological equals of adults in prison. While some youths may be vulnerable to victimization or exploitation by more physically developed adults, other youths may pose a threat to older inmates. Younger offenders have not learned to "do easy time," pose more management problems for correctional administrators, and commit more disciplinary in&actions while they serve their sentences.[162] Existing juvenile detention facilities, training schools, and institutions provide the option to segregate inmates on the basis of age or other risk factors. Some research indicates that youths sentenced to juvenile correctional facilities may recidivate somewhat less often, seriously, or rapidly than comparable youths sentenced to adult facilities.[163] However, these findings provide modest support for a separate youth correctional system rather than for an entirely separate juvenile justice system”(Field,1997, p116).

The scope and focus of this paper is not including the placement of the adjudicated, it is assumed that the current system of separation between the youth and adult criminal institutions for most offenders would remain the same ,changing only the ability to retain authority over the adjudicated beyond the age of majority, depending on the outcome of a trial where the same rights are afforded the youth as are afforded the adults. It is assumed at the age of adulthood the youth would be transferred to adult institutions.

“I propose to abolish the juvenile court with trepidation. On the one hand, combining enhanced procedural safeguards with a "youth discount" in an integrated criminal court can provide young offenders with greater protections and justice than they currently receive in the juvenile system, and more proportional and humane consequences than judges presently inflict on them in the criminal justice system ... On the other hand, politicians may ignore the significance of youthfulness as a mitigating factor and use these proposals to escalate the punishment of young people. Although abolition of the juvenile court, enhanced procedural protections, and a "youth discount" constitute essential components of a youth sentencing policy package,[167] nothing can prevent legislators from selectively choosing only those elements that serve their "get tough" agenda”(Field, 1997, p. 133). Field notes that the “youth discount” would be granted to to the youth during sentencing and can help to prevent excessive punitive sentencing and trial results. The possibility of unusually hard punishments is assumed and is dependent upon the social temperature of the “get tough” agenda. Resulting in the creation of a bias towards the youthful offender and a discredit of the mitigating factor of youthfulness. There slight to little difference in the possibility of overly harsh punishments handed down in the juvenile court or what will be handed down in a solely criminal court today causing the possibility of heavy handed sentencing to be moot due to the fact that this is already a practice among the juvenile courts. With or without the juvenile court the practice of heavy sentencing will remain alive and well, thanks to the “Get tough” agenda that is generally a social acceptance. The result of abolishing the juvenile court would create no noticeable abatement in the severity and frequency of harsh and seemingly UN-just sentences handed down to juveniles.

A pro in the abolishing the juvenile courts is the loss of bias that is caused by prior contact with the justice system, In criminal court cases previous convictions can not be used against the accused because a previous conviction is irrelevant to the case at hand. In direct opposition to this right granted to adults, in the juvenile court the priors and past history is a large factor in the case and a majority factor in sentencing itself. Gibeaut finds concern on this matter stating the problem of disclosure involving information that is irrelevant to the cause at hand “But critics complain that juvenile court judges often cannot act as impartial fact-finders because they have difficulty weeding out irrelevant information, such as kids' prior records, which a jury never would hear” ( Gibeaut, 1999, p24). Consideration of irrelevancy in the juveniles trial would be prevented in criminal court and that would be a positive result for the abolishing of the juvenile court.

The previous quote leads to another discrepancy between the juvenile court and the criminal court systems in place today that would be corrected by the abolishing of the juvenile courts. The discrepancy is jury trials. The absence of jury trials in juvenile courts is in direct conflict with The Constitution of the United States via Article VI or VII of The Bill of Rights, depending on if the case is considered criminal or civil. Field expresses this concern to further the point “Because McKeiver endorsed a treatment justification for its decision, the right to a jury trial provides the crucial legal condition precedent to punish youths explicitly in juvenile courts. Several recent juvenile justice legislative reforms provide some youths with a statutory right to a jury in order to expand the punitive sentencing options available to juvenile court judges”(Field, 1997, p74).The absence of the jury is an injustice to the juvenile. The establishment of jury trials for juveniles in the criminal court would be a result of the abolishing of the juvenile justice system. This would correct an injustice towards the youth in the courts.

The current juvenile court system waives many youth to adult criminal court for trial. This waving to criminal court does not improve the rate of recidivism by the youth. Steward-Lindsey's research indicates that transfer does nothing to reduce recidivism.'' In fact, transferring juveniles for adult criminal proceedings may actually increase recidivism rates: a study focused on the aftereffects of transfer to the adult court system found that youths who were transferred were three times more likely to re-offend than those who remained in the juvenile court system” (Steward-Lindsey, 2006 , p110). The transferring of youth to the criminal courts causes a greater likelihood of new crimes. This practice would be halted by abolishing the juvenile courts and having all criminal acts be tried in criminal courts, that allow for the mitigating factor of youthfulness. In The article Juvenile justice in Austria and the United States: similarities and differences results on abolishing the juvenile justice system are addressed “...or at least totally abolishing juvenile court jurisdiction over status offenders, that is, youths whose offenses would not be crimes if committed by adults. If the juvenile court were abolished, juveniles who commit offenses that would also be criminal offenses for adults, would be tried in the criminal court” (Kratcoski , Edelbacher, 2009, p12-13).

In stating a definition of criminal acts , such acts must be defined to correct the irrational punishment of civil decisions by juvenile as criminal in offense, the status offenders must be excluded from grouping in the criminal category. Status offenders are not accused of violence, theft, abuse, rape,murder,drug dealing or any other such criminal acts found within the criminal court system. Yet, in the juvenile justice system status offenders are treated as such , in some cases, status offenders are treated more harshly that the criminal actors. In abolishing the juvenile justice system status offenders would be removed from the criminal courts. This would allow for a more reasonable way to deal with the civil offenses of the status offender. These offenses would not be considered a violation if the juvenile was an adult.

“Legislative recognition that juvenile courts often failed to realize their benevolent purposes has led to a strategic retrenchment of juvenile courts' jurisdiction over non-criminal misconduct such as truancy or incorrigibility, behavior that would not be a crime if committed by an adult. In the 1970s, critics objected that juvenile courts' status jurisdiction treated non-criminal offenders indiscriminately like criminal delinquents, disabled families and other sources of referral through one-sided intervention, and posed insuperable legal issues for the court.[14] Judicial and legislative disillusionment with juvenile courts' responses to noncriminal youths led to diversion, deinstitutionalization, and decriminalization reforms that have removed much of the "soft" end of juvenile court clientele”(Field,1997,p75). The criminal courts have no jurisdiction to stand on pertaining to status offenders and the decriminalization of such offenses would free up the court system for the more serious offenses against society and help maintain the right to a speedy trial. The criminalization of status offenders predisposes the youth to the courts and sets precedence in their lives to be a criminal offender.

“... As these cases have reached the courts, they have raised Fourth and Fifth Amendment issues. The consequences are severe, and the learning outcomes for students who end up in the criminal justice system are not encouraging”(Price,1997, p550 ). The outcome of the status offender in being removed from the courts by the abolishing of the juvenile court system would be an overall improvement to the criminal justice system.

The juvenile justice system is currently modeling the criminal justice system in using due process, beyond a reasonable doubt', defense lawyers, prosecutors and plea bargaining. The result of abolishing the juvenile system would not create much difference in the court proceedings that we have in the juvenile system today. “ In the US, juvenile court proceedings have taken on many of the aspects of adult criminal courts” ( Kratcoski, Edelbacher, 2009, p12-13). The difference is in name such as being adjudicated or being convicted and the sealing of records. In some states the juveniles information is released to the public. The protection of confidential juvenile records could be maintained in the criminal court system if the state decides to uphold the precedence in said area.

The result of abolishing the juvenile justice system would be a positive direction for the United States. The juvenile would receive full rights guaranteed to the accused under the Bill of Rights. The status offenders would be removed from the criminal aspect of the court system, this action would free up criminal courts and reduce the tax burden on the citizen who pays for this system. The system we have now for the youth offenders is lacking in justice for the juveniles of our country. It is no longer concerned with the “best interest of the child” rather it is concerned more so with public opinion and the “get tough” agenda that leaves the accused child under judgment from all their current and previous actions without the protections and safeguards afforded to the accused adult. The abolishing of the juvenile justice system would correct this oversight of the past thirty years and help to actually protect the juveniles from the abuses of power. The abolishing of the juvenile justice system would result in the removal of the largest discriminatory act against a single group of people in the history of the United States - that is actively discriminating against the youth without regard for race, color, creed or gender. This discrimination is based on one sole factor – age.

References

        Feld, B. (1997). Abolish the Juvenile Court: Youthfulness, Criminal Responsibility, and Sentencing Policy. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 88(1), 68. Retrieved from Legal Collection database.

            Frank, J. (1983). Neither Angels nor Thieves (Book Review). American Bar Association Journal, 69(1), 76. Retrieved from Legal Collection database

    Gibeaut, J. (1999). A Jury Question. ABA Journal, 85(7), 24. Retrieved from Legal  Collection Database

         Kratcoski, P., & Edelbacher, M. (2009). Juvenile justice in Austria and the United States: similarities and differences. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 11(2), 203-216. doi:10.1350/ijps.2009.11.2.124.

     Kurlychek, M., & Johnson, B. (2010). Juvenility and Punishment: Sentencing Juveniles In Adult Criminal Court. Criminology, 48(3), 725-758. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00200.x.

  Price, P. (2009). When is A Police Officer an Officer of the Law?: The Status of Police Officers In Schools. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 99(2), 541-570. Retrieved from Legal Collection database.

      Steward-Lindsey, S. (2006). Fulfilling the Promise of Kent: Fixing the Texas Juvenile Waiver Statute. American Journal of Criminal Law, 34(1), 109-126. Retrieved from Legal Collection database.

Thomas Geraghty's article "Justice for Children: How do we get there?"

Thomas Geraghty's article "Justice for Children: How do we get there?" points suggestions for a more just juvenile system, The three that I find in order of most importance are “[the courts] must preserve individualized decision making with respect to the culpability and the developmental needs of the children”; “procedural protections {(including the right to a jury trial)” as granted in the Constitution} and removing status offenders from the system.

The suggestion “[the courts] must preserve individualized decision making with respect to the culpability and the developmental needs of the children” is deemed important due to the child’s state of mind and ability to understand the court proceedings – The plea decisions made by the court or agreed upon by the child must be comprehensible to the child.

“My colleagues and I leave the courtroom convinced that our client has understood little about the nature and purpose of the proceedings that he has just witnessed. He understands even less about the momentous decision that the juvenile court judge is about to make about his future. His lack of comprehension persists despite our repeated efforts to explain to him the significance of the transfer hearing.” http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-20840467/justice-children-do-we.html

This includes the mental state of the child. The determination of mental capacity by the court-related authorities has notable deficiencies and is lacking a set parameter. The quote is from a study done in Texas on this subject matter: "What we found was that while most jurisdictions value appropriate assessment and referrals — whether through the SAT or its comparable alternatives — not all are equally well-positioned to provide them," said William Kelly, professor and director at the Center. "These variations represent a central challenge to developing criteria for evaluating the appropriateness of referrals of juveniles with mental health or other needs."

Kelly said the findings and recommendations were presented to top administrators of the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission (TJPC). As a result, both the TJPC and the UT Center for Criminology and Criminal Justice Research have indicated an interest in pursuing research aimed at systematically assessing juvenile mental health needs and programming across Texas. http://www.utexas.edu/news/1999/09/27/nr_courts/

A California a study indicates the mental health determinations should also take into consideration the gender of the child -

“* The unique needs of girls: Studies have found that girls in the juvenile justice system have experienced higher rates of physical neglect and higher rates of sexual and emotional abuse than boys. Additionally, delinquent girls suffer from mental health problems and experience traumatic life events at higher rates than boys.”

http://yubanet.com/california/CA-s-Juvenile-Justice-System-Ill-Equipped-to-Care-for-Girls.php

Due process of law and “procedural protections {(including the right to a jury trial)” is second on the list – I argue,once again, that juveniles are not second class citizens. The deserve full protection granted under the Bill of Rights.

The sixth amendment to the Constitution of the United States states “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.” The operative word is ALL. If the suggestion is that the juvenile courts more like a civil hearing, Well then, The Seventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States would allow for the right to a jury trial by stating “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars,the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.” The United States is Rule of Law and the juvenile justice system is a creation of judicial activism-that has no fact or basis under the rule of law. The implementation of the actual laws set fourth by the Bill of Rights would help the juvenile justice system. The problem is within creating a jury of peers for the youth. The teen court model is effective and constitutionally sound. I support State-approved teen courts that implement restorative justice. If juvenile courts were open hearings I do firmly believe there would be less injustice to juveniles. When a hearing is closed the adults involved are removed from accountability. Status offenders should be taken out of the courts. The courts are not baby-sitters. The offender, if a runaway, should be paired with an employment agency and with employment be declared independent – and also be granted the right to vote (not in Constitution). The status offenders are guilty of trying to be an adult – some because of abuse at home, some youth do mature faster and some just do not do well sitting at a school desk all day in confused boredom. Let them grow up and get a job, even if it is hard labor or low paying – it beats the taxpayer carrying the payment burden of their detention. Allow them the option to go into the armed services at 16 for early training but no combat until 18. There are many ways the Juvenile Justice system can be reprogrammed to create productive adults, not the current creation of productive, angry criminals.

Federalist, Anti-federalists papers, Media, Public Opinion and the Vote

           In the writing of the Constitution of the United States the framers were aware of the opposition that would fall upon the ratification. The power given to the federal government left no room for individual rights in the Constitution without the Bill of Rights. The Americans were fearful of a government that was ignorant of individual freedoms and did not want to restrict their newly gained freedoms. Those in control of the government were fearful of the power of the "ignorant masses" and were aware of the changing opinions of the citizens. The mental trauma caused by the tyranny and oppression from English rule was too fresh on the minds of the people. A strong central government with very little limits was feared by the American public.

        The Federalist papers were published to educate and sway public opinion towards the ratification of the Constitution without a Bill of Rights added to maintain the strength of the rule of the central government. Federalist writings implied that individual rights and liberty were protected under the original document. They argued that adding a Bill of Rights would undermine the authority of the government thus making in ineffective and weak. Without these papers circulated in the public the ratification would not have happened - even with the Bill of Rights added.

        The Anti federalist papers were circulated to point out the need for a Bill of Rights. They spoke against the strength of the centralized government with few limits and restraints. The Anti-federalists papers were in favor of limiting the central government. Anti-federalist papers created a movement for the adding of the Bill of Rights that protected the liberties of the individual. 

         The interesting point to this is that there were two sides publicly speaking pros and cons about the law of the land. This created the need to compromise and the Federalist and Anti-federalist each adapted their wants to meet the needs of the people. A balance was created because of the media and ratification was possible. 

         The media can be a tool for the American people to use that enables education and can expose governmental corruption. The media is also a tool that can be used by politicians to restrict education and full disclosure as well. Any spin can be sent out to the public from media. Education comes from gathering information from many sources therefore; restricting media to a few sources can create ignorance of a subject matter. The Freedom of speech must be maintained in all forms to protect freedom, although it is the public’s responsibility to become educated from many sources to form opinions and sway their vote. 

        The vote of an individual can be swayed by gossip, media and the opinion of others. This is why politicians, political action comities and researchers take polls, to see the social temperature of the public. They can go forward with their convictions or they can pull back and even change their previous convictions completely based on public acceptance. They do this because public opinion is a direct relation with vote. The Federalist and Anti-federalist papers in the beginning of this government are similar in the two party system we have now - each supporting different ideals and representing the ideals of their constituents, This is important to protect because it represents the people, creates a balance  and slows down the government so radical changes become more difficult.

        Final Summation, The Constitution with the Bill of Rights is a Yin-Yang type balance between the people and the government. The responsibility of the public is to be informed and educated by multiple facets of media, then to create the opinions that back up the vote to create political Zen for the individual and the country. The Federalist and the Anti-federalist papers much like the two party system we have today creates a balance of power.

“I am not a Democrat,                                 

  I am not a Republican,

  I am an informed voter..."

                     Dana Cowan, 2010    

Child Maltreatment

What are some of the consequences of child maltreatment?  Other than being illegal and against social mores, what impact does it have on society?  Is that impact greater than the act committed?

      A child that has been maltreated, and survives, is looking at a life long attempt to recover from this abuse. The long term effects of the initial action reek havoc in their lives and the lives of the ones close to the abused. Imagine a rock thrown into still water, The initial rock hitting the waters is comparative to the incidents of maltreatment; the ripples from the action are the life long effects of the incidents. The waves are strongest around the point of impact and equals the time into the teen life of the child. The strong waves are compared to the overwhelming disruptive emotional response from the initial abuse and can cause actions that are anti-social, lead to the use of drugs (an attempt to self-medicate) and even mental disorders such as PTSD - that is usually associated with war related disorders. The effects on a child can be as traumatic or even more traumatic than war is on a soldier. The ripples over time become less acute as the mind adjusts and tries to cope with the trauma and over time the mental trauma waves become less intense and more of a chronic mental issue. In time (reaching adulthood) the trauma waves from abuse slow and allow for recovery. Well, This is a hope for an outcome, Although many times maltreatment of a child can “break” the child’s mind :

The "typical" profile of a serial killer is a Caucasian male between the ages of 18 and 32. There will be evidence of child abuse in his background. In his background, he will show signs of the MacDonald triad which are bed-wetting beyond the age of ten, abuse to animals, and a history of arson. The serial killer will operate by himself. This set profile does not encompass every serial killer. There have been many serial killers that do not fit this profile. For this reason alone, the standard or set profile of a serial killer is used to aid in an investigation, not run it.

http://www.crimeusa.com/killer_profile.html

The maltreatment of a child even has the possibility to create serial killers, this obliviously impacts society in a very negative manner. Therefore , I think the impact on society compared to the act committed against the child are equal based on Newton's third law of action - To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction. The child pays for it first, then society pays for it second. Abuse of a child should be prevented at all cost. If a child has been abused an aggressive effort needs to be made to facilitate help for and prevent mental disorders in an effort to restrain the social impact that(without intervention) is sure to follow.

CJ Homework

Discuss the pros and cons of the intervention by the U.S. Supreme Court into the juvenile justice system? Overall, do you think it has benefited juveniles?

The discussion of opinions on the intervention of the Supreme Court in to the juvenile justice system leads to the querying of another question that must be pondered to deduce an opinion. Do you think a juvenile entering in to the system should be granted the same protection as an adult; In other words, Does the Bill of Rights cover all U.S. citizens – including children? My thought is yes. Therefore the pros of the supreme courts intervention are defined by granting the youth many of the same rights and protection afforded to adults. The con is the recent ruling in May stating that juveniles

May not receive life-without-parole sentences for crimes other than homicide. This majority opinion of the Supreme Court backslides on the previous rulings that have made the juvenile justice system more comparable to the adult system. The previous rulings were making progress towards establishing protection under due process of law. The 1967 ruling "In re Gault" granted

• The right to receive notice of charges
• The right to obtain legal counsel
• The right to "confrontation and cross-examination"
• The "privilege against self-incrimination"
• The right to receive a "transcript of the proceedings," and
• The right to "appellate review"
  This ruling of the court was followed by the dissenting opinion of Justice Potter Stewart who expressed concern that the court's decision would "convert a juvenile proceeding into a criminal prosecution." He held to the historical intent of the juvenile justice system, which was not to prosecute and punish young offenders, but to "correct a condition," and meet society's "responsibilities to the child."
  http://www.lawyershop.com/practice-areas/criminal-law/juvenile-law/history/
  The recent 2010 ruling of the court tends to agree with Justice Stewart's dissension opinion from 1967.
  Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a blistering dissent to the court's ruling, saying that the court has gone too far in this decision, which he predicts will "embroil the courts" for years because of its lack of guidance. Thomas said that 129 convicts spread across 11 states and federal courts shows that life terms for juveniles is already a rarity reserved only for the most brutal crimes. He was joined by Justice Antonin Scalia and, in part, by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.
  "I am unwilling to assume that we, as members of this court, are any more capable of making such moral judgments than our fellow citizens,"  Thomas wrote. "Never before today has the court relied on its own view of just deserts to impose a categorical limit on the imposition of a lesser punishment."
  -Chief Justice John Roberts agreed with the majority, but only on Graham's case, writing in a separate opinion that he would not outlaw life-without-parole sentences for juveniles convicted of rapes and shootings. “Just because a victim miraculously survives shouldn't afford a criminal protection against life in prison”, Roberts wrote, citing the Florida case of Milagro Cunningham, a 17-year-old who beat and raped an 8-year-old girl before leaving her to die beneath 197 pounds of rock in a recycling bin at a remote landfill.
  http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2010/05/us_supreme_court_ends_life_sen.html
  
  My opinion is yes. The juvenile justice system has improved with the Supreme courts involvement even if the trends in rulings seem to waver. The Supreme court was ruling in a direction that made the juvenile justice system more like the adult criminal justice system, with the exception of the recent May 2010 ruling – on that I tend to agree with Chief Justice John Roberts opinion. I feel that the recent ruling has benefited juveniles too much. I do believe in rehabilitation for major majority of juveniles; Although I do feel that some people are inherently evil and you can not fix evil ( That’s Gods job – I will leave it to him). If at the age of 17 someone beat and raped my child and then left her under rocks in a trash dump I would want the life-without-parole because the criminal intent was to kill the child. I can only imagine what the 8 year old’s mother went through then and how she feels now knowing he may be released because of this recent ruling.

Historical Justice Themes

There are several historical themes discussed in the text (p. 12-16). Which of these themes do you think are of most importance to today's juvenile justice system?



The historical themes of most importance in today’s society and juvenile justice system are increased authority of the state, unsolvable nature of crime and get tough and go-soft approaches in said order. The negative and anti-social actions of children, whether through peer pressure, lack of insight or sheer momentary stupidity should not cause the adult they can potentially become to vanish. The need to re-insert these adjudicated youths to the society they came from is a responsibility of the state – now more than ever. If the state is going to assume parental power of the adjudicated youth then the state must also take on the responsibility of teaching the adjudicated youth as an accomplished and moral parent would ( this includes not only discipline, but nurture and love more so) focusing on the man or woman they have potential to become. This is more than teaching a trade to the youth, or schooling the youth. It is showing the youth that they are special and unique, that there feelings are valid – and they are worth something to somebody. Many offenders come from homes beyond what is imaginable to the everyday citizen. With the state assuming the parental role they must go the distance for these children.

The increased authority of the state theme is more prominent now than ever. The state can remove youths from homes – in most cases it is in the best interest of the child to do so. This authority has been granted in increments over time and is not going to change. Once you hand over authority it is rarely ever handed back. That is the reason this is of most importance of the themes. It is a theme that is growing and will continue to grow in society today as the states deem it necessary to remove more youth from their homes. Does this removal of youth from family further break down society- therefore setting up the creation of the next and larger generation of adjudicated youths?

The going in circles of the unsolvable nature of crime is as true today as in it's first conceptual thought. No matter what is tried there are still offenders and victims, there is no solution to the problem. The simple thought remains that we must do what we are able and what is just. The nature of human beings is not perfect. In fact, the juvenile seems to lean towards Hobbs “state of nature” in essence the stronger over power the week and little regard for much- they do not have the detailed conception they might get caught, rather juveniles exist in a state of instinct and immediate impulse reaction. To be animal is a humans birthright, we are born knowing how to eat, sleep – survival animal instinct qualities. Becoming human is learned over a long period of time- adolescence is a unique mix of human and animal instincts and depending on the lack of positive nurture administered to the youth during rearing could result in more animal styled thought process. The key to the unsolvable nature of crime is in the nurture of the criminal. This theme has allowed for advancements in treatment of adjudicated juveniles and advancements in their care. Even though there is no positive change in slowing the frequency that juveniles come into contact with the justice system.

The get-tough go-soft theme is the most humane way to deal with offenders. The practice of punishing the offender harshly due to others actions as found in reform and retrenchment is UN-just to the individual as most juveniles break a law or two, and one has been caught at a time when public policy has a zero tolerance due to others actions is not the equality granted to the American citizen. The

get-tough go-soft theme is reasonable and logically correct in the sense that every action has an opposite and equal reaction. The action of a hard crime has a hard penalty vice-verse for soft crimes. The fallacy in this theme (as in all of them) is set standards. In an adult court you have a jury that judges over the accused- the juvenile system makes no allowance for this, therefore a rigid set of penalties should be set, such as truancy 2nd offense = 20 days summer school (no exceptions). The concern is that there are very few adults involved in juvenile court and the records are sealed. How would you ever be able to check to see if some juveniles rights were being protected or if they received a fair trial, Juveniles are citizens – not fully developed.