Violation Of State Action In The Deshaney Case

The case of R. v. Schoenborn is a troubling case involving the death of three children and the defence of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. This defence must be critically analyzed along with the evidence and expert opinions as it could absolve the accused of the charges. As well, the precedent that the verdict provides is critical to the legal system and its future implication and thus give the decision more importance. After a thorough examination of the facts, it is evident that the verdict of the Supreme Court of British Columbia is correct and reflects the administration’s objectives and beliefs. This will be demonstrated through the application of legal principles and elements.

Victims’ Rights in Liberal and Conservative States Hawaii and Tennessee are liberal and conservative states respectively because the former has a strong stand on equity among individuals while the later strongly believes in good morals. The criminal victims’ rights were founded in the 1970s due to victim marginalization that existed for a long period (Caplan 224). Montaldo argues that all the fifty states have rules to protect victims during the trial process (“How to Write” 2). These rights ensure the victims are treated fairly during the prosecution process. The criminal victims’ rights of these two states have both similarities and differences, and the states consider themselves liberal and conservative respectively due to their different belief in the role of the government.

Iowa (Coy v. Iowa case brief, 2014). “The majority found that the defendant’s right to face-to-face confrontation had been violated in the case” (Thuet, 1994, p. 16). The state argued that the purpose for the statue was too protect the children and without the protection some cases would not even make it into court. They argued that, if the child’s testimony went unheard there was no real vital evidence that would convict the defendant. However, the Supreme Court rejected the arguments from the state and stated that, “the necessity of protecting the victims of sexual abuse outweighed the right of confrontation” (Thuet, 1994, p. 16).

After reading the Good Samaritan Home case, I believe it would be classified as criminal and civil case. Criminal law is considered a wrong doing against society and civil law would be considered wrong between individuals. With this case, I believe it would be criminal because of all the state laws that go in together with running a facility like this; the state and people of the county would have to get involved. Not only by talk or reading the news in the newspaper but also by attending jury duty. I also think this case is civil because the family of the abused/neglect could press charges.

An Analysis of DeShaney v. Winnebago County Social Services Randy DeShaney, father of Joshua DeShaney, spent more time beating his four-year-old son than he did in prison. (Reidinger 49) Joshua’s mother, Melody DeShaney, sued the Winnebago County Department of Social Services alleging that they had deprived her son of his Fourteenth Amendment right. In order to understand the DeShaney v. Winnebago County Social Services Supreme Court case one must establish the history, examine the case, and explain the future impacts. Establishing the history of DeShaney v. Winnebago County Social Services helps one to better understand the case.

The Roper v. Simmons decision has significant impacts on juveniles

Furthermore, this leaves room for states to implement their own practices and ways to address status offenders. It has also been argued that the Act “fractured the juvenile justice system so that officials in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare handled white, middle-income youth” (Hinton, 2015, p. 816). Programs which labeled white youths as “children in trouble” marked minority youths as “chronic offenders” who were deemed a danger to society, and tried as an adult. The exceptions and revisions that have been made to the Act make it possible for repeat status offenders to be detained in secure

Constitutional Concerns Fourth Amendment Overview The constitutional concerns that surround home visits in the United States stem from the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution (“Fourth Amendment”). The Fourth Amendment states that “[the] right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” As a result of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fourth Amendment stretches to government action on a state level.

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

The social worker did not handle the case correctly or completely. Herman obviously had some social issues, and showed signs of psychological problems. No action was taken on account of those possible problems. No supervision or consultation was exercised in this case, even though the social worker did not know precisely what should have been done. Though the senior center director seemed to care more about her job than about Herman, she was simply following protocol that comes with her occupation.

The history of child protection in America is quite old and divided into three eras – first one expands from colonial period to 1875 which is referred as the era before the child protection became organized, the second era extends from 1875 to 1962 the era which witnessed the creation and growth of child protection with the help of NGOs and child protection societies, and the third era is the from 1962, known as the era of government regulated child protective services. The first organization that came into existence is The New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children in 1875, and prior to that the children hardly got any kind of protection. To specify some incidents; in 1809, a New-York shopkeeper was convicted for committing

Many children throughout the United States are born into abusive families. These children have had life experiences that youth their age should not have to endure. This is when the state steps in and takes children away from their families. The child welfare system often places children in the foster care. Unfortunately, the foster care system is not always as helpful as it appears to be.

It changed the role of the parent to one of responsibility and not a right over the child or young person. This act outlines the duties of people who work with or around children and how they should work with other services or agencies to keep children safe and protected. The welfare of the child or young person must always

As I watched the documentary “Road Beyond Abuse,” I experienced a whirlwind of emotions. From disgusted and disappointed to impressed and joyful, I felt it all. It truly disturbed me to hear about the experiences both Michael McCain and Johnnetta McSwain endured. I was disgusted that no one protected these innocent children from being verbally abused, beaten, raped, and left to fend for themselves. It was shocking to hear that these children withstood this amount of abuse from their family members until they were teenagers.

Following this point, when their native American community did intend to bring them home after the death of two of their boys, the DSS caseworker kept the letter they tried to send via her to the Billings for decades; and then she sent back a forged letter from “Diann” denying that request. This makes me wonder whether there was something else the caseworker was covering up about this case, or did she just not want to do additional