SHOULD JUVENILES BE CHARGED AS ADULTS IN CRIMINAL CASES TRINA LEVESQUE POST UNIVERSITY Abstract In 1984 in Butte Mt, two boys (boys simply because of their age) Michael Horvath age 15 and Ted Gibson age 14, committed some unspeakable acts. Michael and Ted had brutally taken the lives of their mothers as well as the life of Ted’s 16 year old sister. These two were sentenced to a juvenile detention facility until the age of 21, after which their juvenile records were sealed and they were able to go on with their lives as if it never happened. I feel that justice was not served for the victims. After this heinous act the laws of MT were swiftly changed to charge juveniles as adults if they commit an adult crime.
Mr. Beccaria and other members of the Classical School fought for punishment to be set by legislative instead of judges having all of the authority for punishment. The members of the Classical School of Thought believed that preventing crime was more important than punishing the criminal. When criminals know what the punishment is going to be for the crimes that they are going to commit it will help to deter the crimes from being committed. When people do commit crimes the crime is done of their own free will. This procedure of knowing the punishment with it being severe to the
After serving almost 15 years in prison, his exoneration was not until 2002. Some contributing factors to the wrongful conviction of Bromgard are as follows. Eye Witness Misidentification In the Bromgard case, one of the police officers thought it could be Bromgard because the victim’s wallet was close to the Bromgard home. Though the victim picked Bromgard out of a line up, she was unsure and stated so in court she was only 65% sure he was the man who assaulted her. Even, though the victim stated several times she was unsure of Bromgard her attacker, he was on trial for sexual intercourse without consent.
I believe neuro-imaging could be used as evidence. While many people may use it as an excuse for their actions, it makes sense for why they did these actions. I do not believe it should give them a free pass out of jail (since they still know its wrong and CAN ask for help), but I do think they need counseling and medication over some jail time since that is the only thing that will cure their problem. 5. Do you believe that the judicial system should be based on holding people accountable for their choices (blame) or probability of future crimes committed?
With the defendant they get a shot at leniency from the judge. Then there are some that say plea bargaining is unconstitutional. “Plea bargaining rests on the constitutional fiction that our government does not retaliate against individuals who wish to exercise their right to trial by jury.” (Lynch, The Case Against Plea Bargaining, 2003). essentially this means if the defendant believes in their innocence and want to go to trial the will be punished for standing up for their constitutional rights. It is my belief that plea bargaining is an utter necessity, and though it may not seem just at all times; we as a society can see how hectic the court would be if all cases were brought to trial.
Others may think the exclusionary rule should not be used to enforce the Fourth Amendment. They feel at times it is necessary for the exclusionary rule to not be used. I can understand their position because they are looking at putting the accused defendant behind bars and make sure they are punished to the fullest. At times without the exclusionary rule, the case in court can succeed and get the result the prosecution and maybe even what the public want. Sometimes people feel the defendant has too many rights and has more benefits, which could help them get away with criminal activity.
Labeling a particular crime as special or different does not deter criminals from their true intention. If we place a "special" label on certain types of murder, rape or vandalism we are not preventing the hate that is the motive for such crimes. This is not the true goal of society. Helen Dodge makes a compelling argument to shun the members of such hateful communities in her article "Special Crimes Need Special Laws", when she says that the public should band together against such forces (Dodge 140). However, even she had to admit that these special laws won't deter the criminals who practice these violent acts.
CJUS440-1403A-02 The Laws of Evidence Types of Legal Evidence Phase 1 Individual Project Instruct: S. Jefferson Monday, July 7, 2014 Tammy Wall Case Brief: Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States Brady v. Maryland Facts: Petitioner was convicted of murder in state of Maryland after confessing to being involved in the planning and commission of the crime. Petitioner claims he did not commit the actual murder and should be held less culpable then his accomplice. Defense counsel argued the defendant should not be sentenced to death but should receive a lesser charge of life in prison. Defense counsel requested all accomplice statements prior to trial concerning his confession to the murder. The prosecution turned over the information but withheld one document.
The case of Graham vs Florida cleared out any confusion about the LWOP. When Terrace Graham was 16 years old, he was convicted of armed burglary and attempted armed robbery. He served a 12 month sentence and was released. Six months later, Graham was tried and convicted by a Florida State Court of armed home robbery and he was sentenced to life in prison without parole. On appeal, he argued that the imposition of a life sentence without parole on a juvenile violated the Eighth Amendment and moreover constituted cruel and unusual punishment, and that violated the Eighth Amendment.
The stricter our state is with its punishment, the more people will know not to commit murders. American citizens need to know that chastisements are proportionate and fair. For each killing that occurs, 8 possible victims are spared. We can't risk the chance that execution does not save the lives of potential victims. Since the United States does not have an official religious code to interpret right from wrong, we have to depend on our criminal laws.