Name
Institutional Affiliation
Court Process Questions
1. What issues arose surrounding the case in terms of adjudicating the suspect in juvenile or adult court?
Observing from the sidelines as the court guard, I noticed that there was an issue regarding whether the suspect should be tried in a juvenile court or an adult court. The suspect, a young male, was one week short of his 18th birthday. The prosecution was requesting more time so that the suspect will be eligible to be tried in an adult. The prosecution added that the suspect was in-and-out of court, and hence there was need for stringent sentences that are only available in adult courts. On the other hand, the defense attorney argued that it would be a violation of the suspect’s right to a fair trial if they had to wait until his 18th birthday.
2. How, if found guilty, was the juvenile sentenced, and what individuals in the court process made an impact?
The juvenile was sentenced to 40 days of community service by the juvenile court. As the defense attorney, I had the greatest impact on the court process. The juvenile was ignorant of his rights as a suspect to a crime and the prosecution was willing to take advantage of that. I also noticed that the juvenile had no language skills (Willison et al, 2013). If it were not for him, the juvenile would have received a harsher sentence. In addition, I had to convince him to be remorseful in order to receive a lighter sentence.
3. Do you believe that the sentence was adequate? Excessive?
As the prosecutor, I feel that the sentence was not adequate. 40 days of collecting garbage are not enough to change the ways of the juvenile headed for disaster. The first time he was in court was for assaulting an old woman. This time, he is in court for shoplifting. I would say that the ‘three strikes rule’ should not apply here (Zimring et al, 2001). It would not be prudent to let this unreformed offender out in the streets so that he can commit another third crime for him to receive a serious sentence. I think the court has failed the young man. He might never reform again after his third strike.
4. What are the ages of the juveniles and what were the elements of the pre-adjudicatory stages of the process?
The juvenile was 17 years, 1 week short of his 18th birthday. If it were all up to him, as the judge, I would have referred him to the adult court. The first stage of the trial was to rule on whether to release of detain (Wadsworth, 2005). Since the suspect was old enough, I decided to detain him during the period of the trial. During the intake process, the court found out that it was indeed to go to trail instead of releasing the juvenile. The prosecution felt that there was no need for diversion because the suspect had already gone through a trial process in his last offence.
5. What relation did the victims have to the juveniles?
The victim in this case was a local supermarket owner. He was not related to the juvenile in anyway. According to the testimony of the shop owner, he always saw the juvenile around his shop buying some items. He ever knew that one day he would be the one to be caught in a shoplifting case. He says that juvenile did not look like one to engage in antisocial behavior.
6. How can you better manage how juveniles are processed and strategies to prevent delinquency?
As the defense attorney, I feel that the current juvenile justice system is more punitive than it is corrective. Almost half of the juveniles that I represent in the juvenile court end up committing another offense as soon as their probation is over. It is for this reason that I feel it would be better to engage the services of counselors in the juvenile justice system (Mcord, 2002). Some of these offenders do not know the impact of their antisocial behavior on their association with the society. Once they fail to adapt to the stigma associated with ex-cons, they revert to crime.
References
McCord, J. (2002). Counterproductive juvenile justice. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 35(2), 230-237.
Wadsworth, J., (2015). Juvenile court process; pretrial, trial and sentence. Thomson Learning Inc.
Willison, J. B., Visher, C., Mears, D. P., & Butts, J. A. (2013). National Survey of Juvenile Justice Professionals, 2005-2007 [United States]. ICPSR26381-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 03-21.
Zimring, F. E., Hawkins, G., & Kamin, S. (2001). Punishment and democracy: Three strikes and you’re out in California. Oxford University Press on Demand.