Rights of Juveniles

Introduction

A juvenile, in general, refers to a person between ten and eighteen years of age. It is a particular set of age that define a particular limit is where individuals involved are given trials in a court of law as adults.  Therefore some states may differ on how they define a juvenile. Because those children have different needs which are similar to adults the juvenile court has been established. Children commit crimes giving them a different status that requires being handled legally. 

As a result of their tender age they are considered less understanding thus the law gives them special protection. However, juveniles may not enjoy similar constitutional rights and freedom as adults. According to terms applied in a court of law, children are considered to commit delinquent acts instead of crimes; juvenile offenders are given adjudication hearing instead of trials. Therefore the courts are based on offering rehabilitation and care services instead of punishments to juveniles.

Problem Definition

However, judges who are dispensed with different criminal proceedings have been condemned by failing to offer therapeutic treatments to juvenile delinquents. The juveniles were subjected to unfair trials where most proceedings were proved to be similar to adult criminal proceedings. The judges abused children taken to court of law by subjecting them to similar trials with the same judgments and sentences similar to adults (Benjamin, 2013). The constitution requires defining additional as well as including protection to Juvenile. Some of the constitution rulings are limited in nature such that there is no specific measures and procedures defined to handle juvenile suspects. In many cases, juvenile suspects are harassed as well as treated in the worse environment compared to adults. For example, juvenile suspects are liable to self-incrimination due to circumstances under which the suspect is subjected to.

Children interests were mostly neglected where the procedures and constitutional children protection seemed unnecessary. For instance, children under court trials were not mandated to legal counseling. Informal hearings characterized most of the hearing that was conducted. Some operation were illegally implemented such as confidential discretion and discussion with family members (Einum, Nislow, Mckelvey, & Armstrong, 2008). Such planning and settings contributed to unfair judicial decisions. Sometimes accuracy denies juveniles from their legal rights. For example, the court may deny juveniles from enjoying the right to jury trial.

Practically judges tend not to weigh age and therefore fail to enhance protection to youths. They consider that the suspects have the knowledge and voluntarily committed a particular crime. Sometimes children are ignored and they are tried without the aid of an attorney. They are usually subjected to negotiations with police without any intervention. Such acts result in the unsympathetic treatment of juveniles (Einum, Nislow, Mckelvey, & Armstrong, 2008). The acts result to increased youth crimes as well as violence. In reality, children have different comprehending capabilities compared to adults. Exercising their rights should have special care and considerations. Juvenile should have constitutional ability to waive constitutional protection.

Another situation where juvenile rights are violated when a parent reports a child to the police thereby preventing the child from talking with interrogators. Parents can influence children to falsely confess instead of providing necessary protection demanded by the child during the trial. Therefore that  juveniles should have right to access  a lawyer for effective counseling and advisory services (Benjamin, 2013).

Another important solution is the provision of the mandatory recording of interrogations. A record of what goes on during interrogation should be implemented to ensure that there is full evidence of police obtaining the confession from the juvenile.   Recording of interrogations prevents false confession and reduces the number of chances where a juvenile can be forced  to provide false statements. Another option that can supplement recording is videotaping. It provides more elaborate evidence as well as a platform for assessing voluntaries.

The current constitution highly rejects and deny juveniles from enjoying right to bail. The right to bail is only applicable to adults. Lack of a constitutional that defines the right to seek bail is a violation of rights of juveniles. However, they can be released from the juvenile custody through the mandate of the law or any other constitutional ruling allowing the release of the juvenile. The other right which is violated is the having minimal, limited or no right to a jury trial. Some of the delinquency cases cannot listen to the thro-ugh provision of the jury. In case a jury is allowed they are usually specified and allow only to handle a particular set of crime.

Justification

The fact  that that  research shows there have been increased number of criminal cases resulting from youths more and better ways should be applied to reform the juvenile handling procedures. Youth crime and violence have increased in schools, towns, media,  and social platforms (Estrada, & Marksamer, 2006). There are still  no punitive standards in juvenile courts to deal with special cases concerning juveniles. The absence of due processes as well as clauses defining the procedures for increased crimes and violence among juveniles leads to inaccurate outcomes (Estrada, & Marksamer, 2006). Issues such as false confessions leading to the conviction of innocent juveniles have been encountered. False confessions are mainly experienced among the juveniles especially when subjected to harsh conditions. Interrogation rooms and  DNA technology prove that particular dangers subjected to juvenile suspects lead to the high possibility of encountering wrong convictions based on false confession (Estrada, & Marksamer, 2006).  

However, the US Supreme Court intervened over the concern of juvenile in the year 1967. Through a court order juveniles are tried according to the constitution. All juveniles are granted legal and constitutional rights in accordance to the court of law. The various rights provided included the rights to legal counseling as well as privileges associated with  protection and safety against self-discrimination.   There is need to enhance juvenile enhanced due process protection procedures. Minors rights and freedom of expression without pressure or brutal induction should be enforced.

Literature Review

The first separate juvenile and adult court system were established in 1899 by Illinois. The system separated juvenile offenders from adults offenders through creating special trial  courts for  Juveniles. The major focus was to initiate different setting that can act as juvenile rehabilitation center rather than punishment (Cunneen, Goldson, & Russell, S. (2016). The intention of separating the two courts was to facilitate juveniles development care and protection through providing rehabilitative treatment. Illinois system ensured that juvenile court judges were well trained and could implement individualized therapeutic remedies suitable to the juveniles. 

The changes implemented by Supreme Court in 1967 led to the provision of systematic and procedural right and freedom to the juveniles. The major influences enforced included guaranteed formal hearing to any  juvenile trial case. The court order also provided legal counseling services to the juvenile criminals. The conditions and environment of the trial were highly improved to constitute protection and prevention against any possibility of encountering self-incrimination (Cunneen, Goldson, & Russell, S. (2016). Several  Juvenile based cases reveal that only grudges are  build to the accused child. The various juvenile interrogations have been applied in juvenile courts.

A particular case about one of the juvenile suspect called Gerald Gault contributed to better rights and improvement of rights and freedoms of  Juveniles. Gerald was fifteen years when he was accused of using a phone to make an obscene call. Police never took the time to inform his parents concerning the detention as well as charges accrued to his arrest. The police never informed Gerald about the right to counsel or the right to self-incrimination. During the hearing session, Gerald did not have any lawyer (Hinton, Sims, Adams, & West, 2007). During hearing the woman who received obscene phone call never appeared in the court. During the court hearing, Gerald gave a vague statement in which the judge interpreted as an admission of guilt concerning his past behavior. The sentence offered included Gerald being confiscated in a youth correction facility for six years. The case was not fair since if an adult was convicted of a similar crime, the penalty would probably be a maximum fine of $50 as well as a two months jail imprisonment (Hinton, Sims, Adams, & West, 2007). The court reported that juvenile court judges lacked expertise knowledge and resources for appropriately implementing and fulfilling their functions.

In Miranda versus  Arizona case, a statement obtained during  his custodial interrogation with police was applied as a shred of evidence. However, the statement could only have been applied as evidence if admonitions preceded that revealing that suspect was informed about constitutional rights that protect the accused from self incrimination. According to the rights and freedom of juveniles, dignity and integrity of individuals must be protected. The constitution provides that any confession even if it is truth or has been corroborated by other evidence is usually inadmissible if it has  been provided involuntarily.  The concern for establishing truth is usually understood when liberty and trustworthy are embraced. A juvenile court convicted Gerald through the unsubstantiated admission of guilt. His rights and  freedom were abused whereby the police, as well as judges, never performed a cross-examination of a chief witness to offer evidence against him (Hinton, Sims,  Adams, & West, 2007). The theme of procedural approaches towards the provision of accuracy in juvenile cases demands that charges against juveniles must verify and validated that there is a prove beyond doubts.

In 1990 the DNA sampling proved that it there have been wrong convictions in the past. Experts revealed that wrong convictions have regularly been occurring in various settings.  False confession causes about 14 to 25 percent of convictions. According to studies and conducted in 1990 it was clear that false confession caused 42 percent of convictions for juveniles aged between 16 to 18 years. The children aged  between twelve and fifteen years the percentage is 69% (Hinton, Sims,  Adams, & West, 2007). In  1992 the number of juvenile crimes increased. Some of the crimes recorded includes seven homicide arrests. The effect of media on the society has revealed that there are exaggerations leading to people concluding that juvenile crimes are out of control.

The increased juvenile tension, empirical, psychological and neurological effects on children serving juvenile sentences is highly affected by the fact that juveniles are treated legally incompetent. Since juvenile suspects are legally incompetent children, have below average intelligence about their rights. Some of the suspects suffer mental disorders, becomes emotionally affected as well as suffering from loneliness (Cunneen, Goldson, & Russell, 2016). Juvenile sentences are meant to develop and train them to become obedient and law abiding adults. However,  the authority figures including police, violate rights and freedom of juvenile suspects. True utilization of understanding rights in juvenile courts in time of trial, should  be indicated by ability of a child to respond through nodding or through asking  questions. In case a child is observed to please adults or pleasing police officer  that  shows high level effects from the waivers.

Summary of findings

The police ought to inform a juvenile suspect that he has the right and freedom to remain silent. He has to be told and get the understanding that any information that he communicates can be applied and used as first-hand evidence against him. The police should ensure that the juvenile individual has an understanding of benefits of securing a legal counseling (Cunneen, Goldson, & Russell, 2016). The police must ensure that there is a specialized individual offering special counseling to a juvenile suspect. Similarly, the police must instruct the juvenile suspect about dangers of self-incrimination. The child under trial must fully get informed about privileges that are associated with being defended from self-incrimination. The privileges accrued to self-incrimination is so important that a court would rather allow guilty individuals go free instead of applying police tactics leading to involuntary confession or voluntary confession (Cunneen, Goldson, & Russell, 2016).

Methods of Addressing Issue of False Confessions

Through constitutional protection, some methods have been proposed as a way of in proving children ability to exercise their constitutional protection. One of the methods is the implementation of a procedural process that guarantees trustworthiness as well as accurate measures for the practically viable operation of cases that deals with juveniles. Another solution that enhances rights and protection to confession is ensuring that the  dignity of juveniles is securely protected in the constitution (Koestenberger, & Ravekes, 2012). The constitution shall ensure that truth and accuracy are enhanced by both the police and court order. 

The constitution should ensure that juveniles have direct access to attorneys. They should be provided with counseling experts that assist police, appellate tribunals and Juvenile courts in administering privilege against self-discrimination. Counselors that should be assigned individual juveniles includes lawyers that help the accused by providing an accurate statement of policy containing accurate proceedings that prove that prosecution rightly reports the statement at trial (Koestenberger, & Ravekes, 2012). There should also be a provision whereby parents or other legal guardians can be present during the legal trial of the juveniles. The presence of parents will ensure that at least a witness who has an understanding of rights and their significance is present. However, although parents can serve as part of those who have an understanding of the rights they may not have clear knowledge as lawyers. Similarly, parents are not the right advising people about child’s legal rights. The probation officer can also be introduced to provide advice in case a lawyer or attorney is presented during interrogations. 

The following rights should be enforced.

There must be probable cause that guarantees a need for searching a juvenile. The police officers must provide a good reason for searching and arresting a juvenile who has been suspected of violating laws by committing a crime (Koestenberger, & Ravekes, 2012). Juveniles should have a right to make a phone call. A juvenile should be provided a chance of calling to inform their close relatives that they are in custody and that they are not likely to be released quickly. The law should allow a juvenile to contact parent or guardian, should plan on how to get a lawyer. However if possible the juveniles can make direct contact with his attorney for counseling. When a Juvenile makes a request to speak to a relative, parent or attorney, the right should be exercised immediately. However, in case,  the police ignore the minor's request to have a conversation or consultation with either a parent, a relative or attorney it is considered as violating rights and freedom of juveniles (Koestenberger, & Ravekes, 2012). Everything that juvenile might communicate with the police after the rights are violated should be considered inadmissible in juvenile court.

Since not all juveniles can afford to have a lawyer, he is entitled to counsel. There should be a right to listening and being advocated by an attorney during juvenile proceedings. If a juvenile suspect cannot afford to pay an attorney, he has the right to be represented by any of the state-appointed attorneys who can offer advise accordingly (Pedzich, 2011). The constitution should also ensure that each juvenile who has been considered a suspect should have right to notice the various charges. In case there are any changing trends, schedules or the attorney is changed a prior notice should be provided in case it has been proved to affect the accused.

The juvenile should be provided with the right to confront as well as the right for cross-examining witnesses. In any case, the juvenile adjudication hearing is based on the non formal criminal trial. However, a juvenile has the right for confronting and cross-examining witnesses.  The juvenile has a legal right for to question witnesses only through an attorney the people (Estrada, & Marksamer, 2006). He should be provided with enough power for seeking clarity of testified statements through questions for challenging the testimonies provided during the case period.

There should a provision of a juvenile to exercise self-incrimination through presenting protection against any form of discrimination. Juveniles should protect from any attempt or subjection to self-incrimination (Estrada, & Marksamer, 2006). He should not be allowed to accuse himself or provide direct prove that he participated in a particular crime.

All juveniles should be provided with the right and freedom to build trust and assurance of the charges. They should be capable of having conviction beyond reasonable doubts  The concerned law enforcement and its implementation must be under the high level of that a certain rule has been violated. In a situation where a juvenile has suffered incarceration or adjudication during delinquency trials due to the expected result in the juvenile court proceedings, there must be a genuine truth as to why the juvenile should be jailed. For the penalties accrued to a juvenile, the juvenile court of law must provide effective and efficient evidence based on a preponderance of the evidence that must be standardized (Kinscherff, & Grisso, 2013).

Conclusion

The various juvenile victims has rights which are intended to be enjoyed by different crime victims. The court must ensure that they have full opportunities of making the courts accept and update knowledge for the full impact of crime. Juvenile suspects should be treated with high level of dignity, due respect, as well as sensitivity. They should enjoy the right and freedom their privacy, confidentiality and protection. There should be an enough training and session that permit juveniles to get informed of their rights. Through the trial session, juveniles should enjoy the right to only authorized services such as advice. The entire juvenile systems have involved limited critical stages of the criminal justice process.

References

Benjamin E. F., (2013). Protecting Truth: An Argument for Juvenile Rights and a Return to In re Gault. 

Cunneen, C., Goldson, B., & Russell, S. (2016). Juvenile justice, young people and human rights in Australia. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 28, 2.)

Einum, S., Nislow, K. H., Mckelvey, S., & Armstrong, J. D. (2008). Nest distribution shaping within-stream variation in Atlantic salmon juvenile abundance and competition over small spatial scales. Journal of Animal Ecology, 77, 1, 167-172.

Estrada, R., & Marksamer, J. (2006). The Legal Rights of LGBT Youth in State Custody: What Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice Professionals Need to Know. Child Welfare, 85, 2, 171-194.

Hinton, W., Sims, P., Adams, M., & West, C. ( 2007). Juvenile Justice. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 18, 4, 466-483.

Sherry Roberts is the author of this paper. A senior editor at MeldaResearch.Com in online nursing papers if you need a similar paper you can place your order from medical essay writing service online.