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.