Kent and Gault Discussion

peer 1 for reply

Class,

Disposition of juveniles cases can be broken down into several categories, from the most basic disposition of dismissing a case to treatment option, probation, detention centers, etc…. The court has several options to refer to when considering a juvenile case. Looking at Kent v. the United States, Morris Kent a juvenile who was charged with serious offensives was transferred to an adult court due to a judge waiving its jurisdiction in regards to an investigation that had little to no detail. While the court did legally have the right to waive jurisdiction, the court failed to justify their decision. This break down resulted in the Supreme Court overturning the ruling favoring the defendant. While I agree that Kent should be tried and sentenced as an adult, his rights were not given to him when details on the waiver were not released to him. According to Alan J.Tomkins, in his review on juvenile disposition, he states that “a child advocate to investigate whether the punishment would be in a child’s best interest.” (Tomkins, 1990) even if Kent committed a serious crime the Judge should have kept all detail to the investigation open to the juvenile attorney.

When looking at the second case, Gerald Gault was on probation for minor crimes and arrest and re-tried due to prank calls on a neighbor. Gault case was determined to have been handled improperly, his basic rights were never given to him and the court made no attempt to help the juvenile. Again the child interest was not a priority in this case. The court should have considered a reform program for the juvenile as his disposition. Gerald shows many signs with behavior problems that can be fixed instead of creating a criminal with more serious crimes, is sentenced to a detention center.

The crime that I would consider a limit to the imposition of normal sanctions, ADR, and diversion is the second case we looked at. Gerald Gault. Minor offensive should have the opportunity to juvenile court. First-time offenders or in this case of minor crimes can be reformed, punishment creates a more unstable life for the juvenile.

Alex

Tomkins, A. J. (n.d.). Dispositional Decisionmaking in the Juvenile Justice System: An Empirical Study of the Use of Offense and Offender Information(Rep.).

U.S. Supreme Court cases have had an impact on the character and procedures of the juvenile justice system. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/9912_2/juv2.html

Peer 2 for reply

Hello ladies and gentlemen,

When looking at the Kent case we notice that he was initially charged with rape and robbery. However he was only found guilty on six accounts of housebreaking and robbery. According to the article this would result in anywhere from thirty to ninety years in prison (Kent v. United States, 2019). Also, prior to these charges, he was on probation for other charges. He was acquitted on two charges of rape due to pleading insanity. By the time the proceedings were over he was twenty-one so he was not able to fall into the category for juvenile rehabilitation (Kent v. United States, 2019). I believe that the best dispositional option would be to send him to adult prison and serve for the counts that he was convicted of. According to the article “U.S. Supreme Court cases have had an impact on the character and procedures of the juvenile justice system” not only was he convicted of these charges he confessed to it all plus a few other things as well (1999).

In the Gault case he was on probation in 1964 when him, fifteen, and his friend decided to make a prank call to an adult neighbor asking her things like “Are your cherries ripe today?” and “Do you have big bombers?” according to the neighbor. However when it came to the hearing process the neighbor never showed up, which Gault’s attorney filed a writ of habeas corpus stating that it denied Gault several constitutional rights (In re Gault, 1999). Those rights included notice of charges, counsel, questioning of witnesses, protection against self-incrimination, a transcript of the proceedings, and appellate review. And since these were ignored he was sentenced to finish his last years of minority in a training school, however an adult would only be sentenced to a fifty dollar fine or 2 months in prison for the same crime (In re Gault, 1999). The courts agreed that all his rights were violated besides the appellate review but still persuaded the State to uphold these rights. I believe that to be true because the witness or “victim” of the crime never continued to testify against Gault so it should have been either been acquitted or she should of been subpoenaed to court so that the charges we not null and void.

The crimes that I would limit nominal sanctions, ADR, and diversion would be offenders that could possibly benefit from other form of help for instance, like petty theft, trespassing, possession of tobacco, and vandalism. I believe a couple of these crimes could be situated with community service and some additional teaching of responsibility. Those crimes would be petty theft and vandalism. While for trespassing and possession of tobacco these are crimes that could be accidental or even not punishable. For trespassing it could be accidental if there are no signs and the juvenile just moved there. They could have been lost. As for possession of tobacco a lot of parents allow there children to use chewing tobacco at a young age because in country communities it is normal so they do it nonchalantly. So in some sense they won’t think it is punishable and will just tell there children to not do it in public. Thanks for reading!

Best wishes!

Sierra M. Bolden

Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966). (2019). Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/383/541/

U.S. Supreme Court cases have had an impact on the character and procedures of the juvenile justice system
Line. (1999). Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/9912_2/juv2.html