The three cases that I chose to believe that have been the most important in the development and evolution of juvenile justice are In re Gault in 1967, Breed versus Jones in 1975 and Schall versus Martin in 1984. I have chosen these three cases because, no individual should be tried twice for the same crime in multiple courts. I believe that if a juvenile is in any kind of trouble with the law, that the juveniles caretaker should be notified immediately. Also that juveniles should be allowed the same rights as adults, they are still humans. In my opinion, I think it is a good idea to place a juvenile in a detention facility, especially when they are deemed to be harmful to themselves and or other individuals in society. Many cases in history are “Learn as you go” cases. When I say learn as you go cases, I mean that no body really knew any better as to what should be included in a case. The country 's laws have been set from previous mistakes, trial and error. Such as the fourteenth amendment applying to juvenile courts. Under the fourteenth amendment, each and every living individual who is to be tried or is being tried, is entitled to equal protection of the law. In the case of In re Gault, the fourteenth amendment had played a major part of the case. The juveniles parents were not informed of their son 's actions nor his whereabouts.
…show more content…
After hearing their son 's sentence, and receiving a harsher punishment than an adult, the parents raised a petition to rehear the case. According to “Facts and case summary: In re Gault 387 U.S. 1(1967)” on www.uscourts.gov. It was the Supreme Court that had decided that “...juveniles facing an adjudication of delinquency and incarceration are entitled to...the Due Process Clause...”. After review of the case by the Supreme Court, they had found it to be in violation of the fourteenth amendment but, saw the punishment as a correction instead of a punishment. In Breed versus Jones 1975, the importance of this case was to create a rule or law that a delinquent or criminal cannot have double jeopardy. Double jeopardy is when an individual who breaks the law receives a sentence from two different trials for the same offense committed. The suspect and suspects mother knew he had been tried twice for the same crime, once as a juvenile and once as a criminal. She petitioned until the courts saw the petition and reviewed the case. This case put an end to double jeopardy by stating in an article titled Breed v. Jones 421 U.S. 519 (1975) the “...once jeopardy attached at the adjudicatory hearing, a minor could not be retried as an adult or a juvenile...” https://supreme.justia.com. The last case I have chosen is Schall versus Martin. I have chosen this case due to the fact that we, the country, continue to have juveniles and criminals detained in detention centers for the overall safety. For the safety of other individuals and the suspects safety. I think it is a good idea to maintain this law and common sense. A suspect would be willing to cause serious bodily harm or death to a witness or victim. Much consideration has been put into deciding if detaining an individual before that individual was convicted or a crime of not, violated the fourteenth amendment. Once all has settled down and made by points of the accused possibly committing a crime could lead to a worse
After hearing their son 's sentence, and receiving a harsher punishment than an adult, the parents raised a petition to rehear the case. According to “Facts and case summary: In re Gault 387 U.S. 1(1967)” on www.uscourts.gov. It was the Supreme Court that had decided that “...juveniles facing an adjudication of delinquency and incarceration are entitled to...the Due Process Clause...”. After review of the case by the Supreme Court, they had found it to be in violation of the fourteenth amendment but, saw the punishment as a correction instead of a punishment. In Breed versus Jones 1975, the importance of this case was to create a rule or law that a delinquent or criminal cannot have double jeopardy. Double jeopardy is when an individual who breaks the law receives a sentence from two different trials for the same offense committed. The suspect and suspects mother knew he had been tried twice for the same crime, once as a juvenile and once as a criminal. She petitioned until the courts saw the petition and reviewed the case. This case put an end to double jeopardy by stating in an article titled Breed v. Jones 421 U.S. 519 (1975) the “...once jeopardy attached at the adjudicatory hearing, a minor could not be retried as an adult or a juvenile...” https://supreme.justia.com. The last case I have chosen is Schall versus Martin. I have chosen this case due to the fact that we, the country, continue to have juveniles and criminals detained in detention centers for the overall safety. For the safety of other individuals and the suspects safety. I think it is a good idea to maintain this law and common sense. A suspect would be willing to cause serious bodily harm or death to a witness or victim. Much consideration has been put into deciding if detaining an individual before that individual was convicted or a crime of not, violated the fourteenth amendment. Once all has settled down and made by points of the accused possibly committing a crime could lead to a worse