140 likes | 296 Views
The Legal Rights of Juveniles. Context of Parens Patriae Police Detention Intake Waiver Adjudication . Overriding Issue?. Parens Patriae The state is acting as a surrogate parent, has a right to intervene in the life of a child E.G. Ex Parte Crouse (1838)
E N D
The Legal Rights of Juveniles Context of Parens Patriae Police Detention Intake Waiver Adjudication
Overriding Issue? • Parens Patriae • The state is acting as a surrogate parent, has a right to intervene in the life of a child • E.G. Ex Parte Crouse (1838) • Commonwealth v. Fisher (1905) • Intervene in the life of a child for that child’s good • Therefore, Bill of Rights does not apply to juveniles • 1900s-1960 = Largely “Hands Off” doctrine
Parens Patriae attacked • Increased (and public) evidence of judicial abuse of discretion (Gault, for example) • Attack on Rehabilitation • Mistrust of Government • Rise of Labeling Theory • National Trend in Bureaucratization
The Police • Haley V. State of Ohio (1948) • Gallegos V. Colorado (1962) • Harling V. United States (1961) BUT: • Fare v. Michael C. (1979) • New Jersey vs. T.L.O. (1985) • Cason v. Cook (1987)
The Police: Recent Lower Court Cases • Smith v. State (1992) Versus • State v. Sugg (1995) • In the Interest of J.L., A Child (1993) Versus • In the Interest of S.A.W. (1993)
Detention • Schall v. Martin (1984) • Preventative Detention is constitutional • Lower Cases • Martarea v. Kelly (1972) • Punitive/hazardous conditions of confinement violate juvenile’s constitutional rights
Intake (No S.C. Cases) • In re Frank H. (1972) • No right to counsel (not “critical” phase) • Too much burden would be placed in JJS • In re Wayne H. (1979) • Information gathered at intake cannot be used in any guilt-finding process; juvenile or adult
Waiver to Adult Court • Kent v. United States (1966) • Transfer is “critical stage” • Hearing, Counsel, access to records, statement of reasons supporting waiver • Breed v. Jones (1975) • Double Jeopardy • Cannot find delinquent and then waive to adult court • People vs. P.H. (1991): Gang Waiver
Adjudication • In re Gault (1967) • In re Winship (1970) • McKeiver v. Pennsylvania (1971) • Lower Cases • Boyd v. State (1993) • if waived, adult rules apply • In re Marvin C. (1995) • State must prove juveniles under age 14 have capacity for intent
Disposition--Death • Eddings v. Oklahoma (1982) • Mitigating circumstances must be considered • This evidence must be put on the record • Thompson v. Oklahoma (1988) • D.P. unconstitutional for those 15 or younger at the time of the offense • Stanford v. Kentucky (1989) • It is constitutional to execute those 16 or 17 years old at the time of their crime
Dispositions—non-Death • United States ex rel. Murray v. Owens (1972) • Constitutional to adjudicate in JJS without jury trial and sentence to a young adult facility • Baker v. Hamilton (1972) • Placement in adult jail without total separation from adults is unconstitutional • A.S. v. State (1993) • Parents cannot be forced to pay restitution unless court demonstrates their lack of “good faith” in raising child
Other Issues • Conditions of Confinement • Inmates of Boy’s Training School v. Affleck (1972) • Privacy Issues • Generally left to states, but no First Amendment right where state prohibits.
So you see Timmy… • See tables in Champion book • Differences between adult and juvenile due process rights • Differences across states in the extent to which juveniles are granted d.p. rights • Half Empty of Half Full? • Feld: Worst of both worlds • Isn’t the opposite also possible?