Criminal Justice in America: A Critical View Essay

twist legal expertIntroduction Criminal justice is a remains of government institutions, which argon tasked with upholding social control, and directed at mitigating abhorrences as well as sanctioning the law breakers with condemnable penalties as and rehabilitation efforts as well. Criminal justice covers a deem of areas including law enforcement, new occurrences, correction and crime prevention. Criminal justice cases at level 200 cover a wide range of areas including policies on sentencing and course session, theories of policing and their effects fell justice practice. As well as familiarize with a wide range of police powers curiously those involving searching and take hold of powers. The central role of law in social processes is explored under criminal justice 200, with primary legal regimes of various types being examined and compared from different content contexts as well as across different international context. effective and non-legal reforms, those of soci al ordering, are contrasted investigating human declines law in its practice and structure. Level 200 also focuses on Disability studies. Theories on how the fiat interprets disability and consequences in social justice. Factors and determinants that frame disability are factored. These factors entangle social, political, biological, cultural and economical determinants (Sheldon et al 455). On this paper, I will make a case that will seek to examine how the judicial system decided to take a shift in the way juveniles were treated at trial in cases of criminal nature. The system saw it necessary to put into consideration the psychological factors, on growth of adolescents brains especially, when determining these cases as the aim of the system is more of reforming than punishing. Over the years, most states come believed the youthful system in the Judicial system is set up for usual protection by providing a mechanism to respond to children who are get into crime as they ma ture into adulthood. The children who commit these crimes are believed to be little dangerous and blameworthy hence the need to differentiate them from adults doing the same. States have been antiphonal to these differences and have in turn established separate court systems to furnish for the juveniles. They have also provided separate youth-based systems on service delivery that are different from those of adults. Juvenile systems have grown remarkably since their setoff introduction. The first juvenile court was established in 1899 in the state of Illinois. At the time, the process was rather informal, consisting of conversations between the judge and the youth- with no legal model for the youth. The system was aimed at creating a different probation system and replacing elbow grease of these youths in jails alongside the adults. A different approach to their incarceration was adoptive which allowed for provision of guidance, education and supervision. All states afterward embraced the juvenile system including the whence district of Columbia. In the year 1967, the Re Gault landmark ruling by the Supreme philander determined the requirement of attorneys for youths in the system as well as provision of other constitutional rights like accuse adults including confrontation of a witness before them. The Supreme Court subsequent gave more constitutional rights including undergoing trials requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt and against epitome jeopardy. However, some states give youths the right to trial y a dialog box through statutes and court rulings although the Supreme Court discouraged this (Bremna 342).Case moth miller v atomic number 13 This case was a petition presented to the Supreme Court by the requester, miller, against the state of Alabama. The case was argued on 20th March 2012 and was later decided on 25th June 2012. In this petition No. 10-9646, the petitioner by the name miller, with his friend beat up Millers friend seriou sly then continued to set his trailer on fire after a long evening of heavy medicine abuse and drinking. The neighbor ended up dying. Initially, Miller had been charged by the court like juvenile, but when his case was later on remote and taken to an adult court, the court charged him with arson and murder. The jury undercoat Miller guilty as charged and the trial court sentenced him to life story without cry, which was a statutorily mandated punishment. The Alabama court dealing with appeals re-affirmed the ruling, arguing that Millers sentence was not even as harsh in comparison to the crime he had committed and the mandatory nature of it was tolerable according to the eighth amendment, which states that one should not be imprisoned for LWP for juvenile offenders that have committed homicide. The amendment forbids cruel and unusual punishments hence guaranteeing the defendant the right of refrain from being subjected to rather harsh sanctions. Punishment for a crime should b e proportionate to both the crime and the offender. The amendment recognizes the lack of mental adulthood n these youths, something that could lead to impulsiveness and recklessness as well as abject finale making (Adam 10). This petitioned was argued and judgment given jointly with a case of the same nature, petition No. 10-9647 of capital of Mississippi v Hobbs in which Jackson was charged with murder and thereafter sentenced to a life imprisonment with no rallying cry. Jackson, a 14year old had taken part in a looting where, unknown to him, one of his friends had carried a short gun with which he utilize to murder the clerk in the store. Jackson was charged by are as an adult with the crime of capital felony of murder alongside robbery. The jury found him guilty of both charges something that led to the sentence. The court likened life without discussion to a death sentence (Adam 10). On June 25 2012, the court gave a 5-4 ruling on the case, judging that a life imprisonmen t without parole was not constitutional if the accused is over the age of eighteen. The court was indomitable on Grahams foundational principle that states that the child status must be taken into account when passing such harsh judgments. disregardless of the crime committed, such severe penalties on juveniles cannot go on as if they were not children. The court also directed that sentences of life imprisonment without granting parole as such should be rare. The vulnerability of the children was taken into account as well as their high capability to veer in the hereafter and become better persons. The ruling would certainly have an after effect, especially on those whose sentencing did not take into account age and other mitigating factors (Adam 10). This decision would see at least half of the states in America change their statutes on handling juvenile cases and sentences to life with no parole including Alabamas statute code 13A. Efforts to end harsh judgments and reduce l onely in confinement for juveniles were evident and efforts to close juvenile detention facilities as states started re-thinking of other ways on how to deal with juvenile offenders. Campaigns for youth reforms have been started with correctional facilities aimed at creating a view on young felons as victims of circumstances rather than felons who are irredeemable (Okonkwo 45).ReferencesTop of FormShelden, Randall G, and William B. Brown. Criminal Justice in America A Critical View. Boston Allyn and Bacon, 2003. Print. crapper of FormDaniel Okonkwo The New York Times- Applying The Miller v Alabama Ruling retroactively Must Be Done, 2013Adam Liptak, Ethan Bronnerthe New York Times- Justice Bar mandate Life Terms For Juveniles, 2012Source document