R V Green Youth Court Case Essay

Eyewitness accounts play a huge role in general in trials and verdicts, but may be unreliable many times, with certain views placed on evidence provided by children. Unreliability may arise from not being able to recount the identity of the accused, the actions and speech occurring during that time, the relationship of individuals towards the person in question, and many

James King, a twenty-three year old man, is charged with felony murder during a store robbery. The victim, store owner, Alguinaldo Nesbitt, was supposedly shot with his own gun that was purchased and licensed by him. In King’s court case, at least one witness admitted to seeing King in the store. “Bobo” Evans states that King was the one to shoot the gun in a wrestle with Nesbitt. In addition to that, Lorelle Henry, a bystander, identifies King out of a lineup and pictures.

To measure if justice was achieved, the case must be reviewed with the three main characteristics of justice, Was it fair? Was it equal? Did both parties have equal access? with further analysis of the back story, charges and both parties cases considered with the characteristics of Justice an educated decision can be made whether the case R v Loveridge [2013] NSWSC 1638, achieved Justice Kieran Loveridge was convicted by the courts for an unprovoked attack on 18- year old Thomas Kelly at Kings Cross and assaults on Rhyse Saliba, Aden Gazi, Marco Compagnoni and Matthew Serrao. Kieran Loveridge was also found as intoxicated through the process of the assaults although there is no legitimate proof on how much Kieran Loveridge consumed, but

CASE: In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 28 (1967) The right to counsel when facing the prospect of institutionalization was clearly articulated in the case of In re Gault (Elrod & Ryder, 2014). The decision, in this case, was the turning point for the rights of juvenile within the United States Courts (In re Gault, n.d.). This was the first time that the Supreme Court held that children facing delinquency prosecution had several of the same legal rights as adults within criminal courts (In re Gault, n.d.). Rights included the right to an attorney, the right to remain silent, the right to notification of charges, and the right to a full hearing on the merits of the case (In re Gault, n.d.).

The question specifically posed for the court to address is whether the courts should consider the age of a juvenile suspect when deciding whether he or she is in custody for Miranda purposes. The Supreme Court issued an opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor determining that a age should be considered when determining if a juvenile suspect is in custody and should be issued their Miranda rights. Sotomayor’s opinion stated, “It is beyond dispute that children will often feel bound to submit to police questioning when an adult in the same circumstances would feel free to leave. Seeing no reason for police officers or courts to blind themselves to that commonsense reality, we hold that a child’s age properly informs the Miranda custody analysis” (The Oyez Project as IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law). The case was returned to a lower court to determine how the age of J.D.B. may have impacted the statements and evidence obtained by

The reliability and admissibility of evidence becomes a foundation to this truth as any evidence presented cannot contain elements which can provide doubt towards the validity of the prosecution. This can be shown through guideline 14 of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions agreement to provide advice for the NSW police towards the legal limitations or consequences of evidence obtained during the course of an investigation (Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions n.d). Identification evidence in particular has a lower weight and strength for admission to a court due to the fallibility and circumstantial nature of witnesses. The admissibility of identification evidence was previously determined by judges based on its quality with case law such as R v. Christie providing principles for discretionary powers for admissibility and Alexander v. R providing methods satisfactory to the court for identification such as identification parades under common law. (R v. Christie 1914; Alexander v. R 1981).

I have been volunteering with the Juneau Youth Court (JYC) for the last year and a half. JYC is an alternative court system ¬operated by students for offenders who are under 18, and allows teens who have pleaded guilty to misdemeanor offenses such as Minor Consuming or Shoplifting to have their case heard outside the state court system. When an offender has completed their sentence imposed by JYC, their case is dismissed; if they don’t go through JYC or don’t complete their sentence, their charges will remain on their record. JYC attempts to use a restorative justice approach to discipline rather than simply imposing a punishment so that young offenders will realize the harm that they did, and make restitution.

To understand the question, focusing on the court cases of Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education, we must first understand each court case on its own. Plessy v. Ferguson resulted in the year 1896. The case involved the 1890s Louisiana law that basically stated that there were separate railway carriages that were specifically labeled for blacks only and whites only. Plessy v. Ferguson involved Homer Plessy, who was seven-eighths white and one-eighth black and appeared to look like a white man. Plessy took an open seat in a white only railway car.

Mrs. Smith English 111 Jan. 28, 2023 Rhetorical analysis: “Legal system has never had an answer for violent kids” In this article, the author, Stephen L. Carter, goes into detail on the reasons why the legal system is confused or conflicted on whether they should or shouldn’t charge young children below the age of 10 for their crimes. This article is somewhat controversial because of the recent case that happened in Virginia with the 6-year-old, but he uses this to his advantage to get his point across and to try and shed some light on the way the justice system has and continues to handle these cases in the past. Not only is the topic something controversial, but his opinion on what they could do and how to solve it is also controversial.

America’s founders created the constitution in order to create unification and order in the United States. However, there have been controversy surrounding the interpretation of the constitution, this has caused debate over many issues within the country. These issues and the lack of wartime policy within the constitution directly lead to the Civil War, which was one of the worst alterations this nation has faced. The Missouri compromise, the Dred Scott decision, and Bleeding Kansas were controversial issues surrounding the constitution that directly lead to the Civil War.

The common thread is the finding of vulnerability based on a factor that is completely separate and distinct from the underlying offense. Conditions that make a three-year old more vulnerable than an eleven-year old can support the application of the vulnerable victim enhancement. For example, in United States v. Grubbs, the Fourth Circuit upheld the vulnerable victim enhancement because the defendant lured his victims by giving them higher grades and gifts and enticing them with the promise of scholarships. Similarly, in United States v. Willoughby, the Sixth Circuit held that a sixteen-year old girl was vulnerable because she was a homeless runaway with a history of abuse and neglect. In United States v. Irving, the Second Circuit applied the vulnerable victim enhancement because the victims were homeless, impoverished, and without parental or other appropriate

Annotated bibliography Childress, S. (2016, June 2). More States Consider Raising the Age for Juvenile Crime. Retrieved from PBS: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/more-states-consider-raising-the-age-for-juvenile-crime/ More states are considering to raising the age for juvenile crimes before being tried as adult because young offender's mental capacity. The idea is to cut the cost of incarcerate young offender in adult prison and ensure offenders to receive proper education and specialized care to change their behavior. Putting children in adult prison does not deter crime.

In Paul Thompson’s article “Startling Finds on Teenage Brains” the author talks about how that teenagers who committed crimes should not be treated as adults in the legal system. Thompson also talked about how statistically teenage brains are still developing throughout their teenage years. The author Paul Thompson is more credible because not only he provided heavy words and having an expansive vocabulary he also provided examples from facts and his own research as well. Specifically, in the article and on paragraph 6 the author uses examples from his research and resides it with the current topic and to his own opinions, in the paragraph he mixed both ethos and logos to try in luring readers. The technique that Thompson uses is very unique,

There are many children in the world who are being put behind bars and detained for alleged wrongdoing without protections they are entitled to. Throughout the world, children are charged and sentenced for actions that should not be considered as adult crimes. Here in the United States, the minimum age of criminal responsibility is age 12. Law enforcement officials and those in the juvenile justice system nationwide tend to mistreat underage individuals by trying cases while working through the lens of an adult. Unfair punishments are still handed down domestically, which is in violation of Supreme Court law.

Therefore, when a person argues that a juvenile was not aware of their crime is a discrediting claim. In 1990 in the city of Chicago, a couple expecting their first child were murdered in cold blood in the hands of a juvenile teen. The teen shot both the husband and the wife who pleaded for their lives and the life of their unborn child. Author of “Juvenile Justice Information Exchange”, Jennifer Jenkins states, “He reported to a friend, who testified at his trial, about his ‘thrill kill’ that he just wanted to ‘see what it would feel like to shoot someone’”. This killer was aware of his crime and was aware of who his victims were due to planning the murders months before.