Summary: The Macarthur Influence Assessment Tool-Criminal Adjudication

A great court case would be Gideon V. Wainwright 1963- Gideon sent a petition to the court thought-provoking his conviction for trespassing into the Florida pool hall. He reasoned that his trial was not fair due to not having a lawyer to assist with case. The court then stated that when he was read his Miranda rights during the arrest that was the opportunity and the right to hire counsel. The supreme court confirmed that Gideon’s rights were not violated because he did not specifically request counsel. Its crucial that officers read suspects their Miranda Rights. Youth have the right to remain silent (Meaning you do not have to speak), anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law( meaning anything you say can be used to incriminate you and be used during trial), you have the right to an attorney (Meaning you have the right to a counsel). If you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to you (If you need an attorney and cannot afford one they have public defenders for low of cost or free). Then they will ask if you have any questions and so forth. With out Miranda right’s statement any evidence or persons confession could be possibly thrown out or

Consequently, teenagers are often impetuous and have a difficult time controlling their emotions. However, this does not serve as an excuse for committing crimes with great magnitude such as murder. In The Sacramento Bee, Greg Krikorian published the results of a study conducted by a University of Massachusetts professor in an article titled “Many Kids Called Unfit for Adult Trial.” According to the findings of the study, “performance in reasoning and understanding for youths ages sixteen and seventeen did not differ from those at least eighteen years of age.” (Greg Krikorian 7) Although younger teenagers may not have the same reasoning potential, based on the performed study, sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds, in comparison to adults, have very similar thinking abilities. Thus, the brain development of these teenagers is almost, if not completely, finished. As a result, trying teenagers ages sixteen and up as juveniles is not fair to adult convicts, considering the fact that both groups have the same reasoning abilities. Thus, juveniles ages sixteen and up should be tried as adults. However undeveloped their brains may be, teenagers fully understand the consequences of their

The Declaration of Independence States that “we the people are created equally”. Based on that, the question of should juveniles be trial as an adult has risen in the society these children are being tried as adults while others are being tried as juveniles and receiving milder punishments. People hold certain inalienable rights that all human beings, “According to the U.S constitutional, meaning that all humans are naturally free to make our own choices and prosper juvenile offender may receive a few years in a juvenile detention facility and possibly probation following his release at age eighteen”. An adult

During In re Winship (1970), it was determined that juveniles, just like adults, are entitled to “beyond a reasonable doubt” during the adjudication process. It was also decided that “preponderance of evidence” was not enough to gain a conviction when it came to juveniles being charged with criminal offenses an adult could commit. Both In re Winship (1970) and In re Gault (1967) were designed to

Considering the behaviors of an adolescent in the same manner as that of an adult is unfair. Juvenile brains are still developing, which means that they perform differently than adult brains (AACAP). Adolescents are more likely to act on impulse, get involved in fights, and engage in risky or dangerous behavior. They are less likely to think before they act or consider the consequences of their actions (AACAP). Weighing this scientific fact, it is unfair to assume that a juvenile committed a delinquent act with the same forethought of an adult. The mental development of a juvenile makes it difficult to prove that they established the mens rea equal to that of an adult guilty of the same offense.

Michele Deith said “Children brains are still under developed, then why tired them as an adult in court”. A child being tried as an adult effect their lives in many ways. The message of loss hope builds up in their minds prompting the idea that they can’t make mistakes. Because they fear they will always be tired unfairly. Also, being in prison for a life time for an ignorant mistake will make them more likely to commit more crimes. Crime records as a juvenile holds less than an adult record. Majority of juvenile cases are only classified as minor offensives. While, some cases may be different because of the crime, children should still be recognized for learning and should be held responsible however, not on an adult level.

When a juvenile enters an adult court, those courts view them no longer as an adolescent, but as an adult. However, they are not adults. Juveniles are actually far from it, not just physically, but mentally as well. It is known that the human brain, specifically the prefrontal cortex and the frontal lobe,

The human brain is not fully developed until you are in your mid-20s. Should people be tried as an adult for crimes they committed as juveniles, before they were even 18 years of age? Jose, only 15 year olds at the time of the crime, had a difficult life, grew up in a rough neighborhood, and was eventually arrested and brought to court for murder after participating in a deadly brawl. The first major turning point for juvenile legal rights occurred in 1966, in the case Kent v. United States, where the Supreme Court decided that a juvenile cannot be waived to adult court without first being given due process, which includes a hearing, assistance of counsel, and a statement of reasons. Another major milestone for juvenile legal rights was in 1967, in the

Unlike adults going to trial juveniles have more rights protecting them in the court of law or when being questioned by the police. These modifications of the law are in place to protect the interests of the juvenile as they are unable to comprehend some of the laws and rights like adults. In people v. Murdock, a juvenile was questioned after giving his consent to the officers to question him about a crime he may or may not have been involved in. Throughout the whole case there was the question of, whether statements made by a juvenile were considered involuntary.

The legal standard applied for competency in both juveniles and adults is defined by the U.S Supreme Court in Dusky v. U.S., 402 (Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 1960), and affirmed in Godinez v. Moran (Godinez v. Moran, 113 St. Ct. 2680, 1993). Those standards include; “1). Sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding, 2). A rational as well as factual understanding of proceedings against him/her; and are a requirement applied under due process obligations. The application of these standards in practice require the juvenile to understand and appreciate the charges, potential pleas, and their consequences; understand and appreciate the roles of the participants in the trial process; the ability to understand communications from counsel and to have the ability to meaningfully communicate with counsel to aid in developing a defense; the ability to understand, appreciate, and make decisions about the waiver of important rights (ex. Miranda rights), especially decisions about pleading and plea agreements; and the ability to testify at trial if needed and are applied through out the legal process (Grisso, 2005, p. 7).” The standard to which juveniles are assessed in their abilities to meet these standards is still

Children being tried as adult’s unfortunately is not a new practice in the U.S. or one that is looked down upon. In the United States there are thousands of underage children that get tried in criminal court each year. Countless of studies show that trying children as adults does not benefit neither the child nor the society. This essay will show that trying a child as an adult is unconstitutional and violates the criminal law conduct. This essay will carful define the terms regarding children in the criminal justice system, to fully understand the situation.

In the United States of America today when a person has been committed of a crime they are trialed through a system to conclude if they are guilty as well as determine their best fit punishment of due to the crime. From what most people know when an adult is put through this process they have the right to a quick and speedy trial with a jury to determine if they are guilty and they are given their punishment. However, within our system the process of punishment and sentencing is significantly different if the defendant of the crime is under the age of 18, if they are under 18 they are legally considered a child and are not put through the same system and punishment with which adult are. They are but through what we call a juvenile court system.

Many have argued that competency to stand trial is the “most significant mental health inquiry pursued in the system of criminal law” (Cowden & Mckee). This pillar of the American Legal System assures that those accused of criminal acts must be sufficiently competent to understand and partake in the trial proceedings. The threshold of competence can differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but it mainly hinges on a series of factors such as cognitive deficits, the presence of a mental illness, and an inability to comprehend or effectively communicate with legal counsel. While this standard was made legal precedent in the 1960s it was only in regards to the adult criminal system; however, in past decades legal reform has allowed for youths to be tried and subjected to the same punishments as adult defendants (Schwartz & Grisso). This legal development brings about a very imperative issue: Should youth offenders be subjected to the same standard of competence as their adult counterparts? Furthermore, since these statutes were developed for determining competency in adults, can they properly recognize the uniqueness of the youth population?

Minors cannot smoke, drink, or vote, but as soon as they commit a crime, they are suddenly adults. Adolescents as young as 12 are being charged as adults. According to the legal system, citizens are not adults until the age of 18, so why should we not treat them as such? They are mentally incompetent compared to adults, and are unable to fully understand the judicial system to defend themselves. “When compared with young adults, children ages eleven to thirteen were more than three times as likely to be found ‘seriously impaired’ in understanding the judicial process and aiding their own defense. Similarly, it found those fourteen or fifteen years old were twice as likely to be "seriously impaired" in such awareness and reasoning” (Krikorian “Many Kids Called Unfit for Adult Trial”). It is unconstitutional to force adolescents to defend themselves when they are inept in doing so. Jordan Brown was only 11 when he was arrested for the murder of his stepmother, Kenzie Houk, and her unborn child. Houk was shot in the back of her head. Brown had in possession, a 20-gauge shotgun that he claimed he used for hunting. However, he claimed he never did it and was walking to the school bus with his sister. Even though there was insufficient evidence, Brown was left unable to defend himself, and charged with two counts of first degree murder in an adult

In most states, public safety and whether or not the needs of the juvenile defendant will