Juvenile Rights

2019 ◽  
pp. 105-108
Author(s):  
Eileen P. Ryan ◽  
Elizabeth Ford
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Critical Case ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Life Without Parole ◽  
System P ◽  
Due Process Rights ◽  
The Way

Chapter 13 includes three cases that have each shaped the way adolescents are treated in the justice system. In re Gault was a critical case in establishing due process rights for adolescents who have been charged with a juvenile offense. Graham v. Florida and Miller v. Alabama are recent Supreme Court cases that have defined the limits of punishment, specifically limiting life without parole, for adolescents charged in the adult system.

Juvenile Rights

2014 ◽  
pp. 78-80
Author(s):  
Eileen P. Ryan ◽  
Elizabeth Ford
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Critical Case ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Life Without Parole ◽  
System P ◽  
Due Process Rights ◽  
The Way

Chapter 13 includes three cases that have shaped the way adolescents are treated in the justice system. In re Gault was a critical case in establishing due process rights for adolescents who have been charged with a juvenile offense. Graham v. Florida and Miller v. Alabama are recent Supreme Court cases that have defined the limits of punishment, specifically limiting life without parole, for adolescents charged in the adult system.

Constitutional Limitations

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott Burris ◽  
Micah L. Berman ◽  
Matthew Penn, and ◽  
Tara Ramanathan Holiday
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Reproductive Rights ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Health It ◽  
State Action ◽  
Substantive Due Process ◽  
State Action Doctrine ◽  
Due Process Rights

This chapter describes “due process,” a Constitutional restriction on governmental actions that impact individuals, in the context of public health. It outlines the doctrines of procedural and substantive due process, including the legal tests that courts apply to decide whether individuals’ due process rights have been violated. It uses examples from Supreme Court cases that have defined due process in the context of public health, including those that struggle to define the scope of reproductive rights. It also examines two cases where public health principles were raised as a justification for governmental action: one about involuntary sterilization and one about Ebola. The chapter concludes with a brief discussion of the “state action doctrine” that defines which public health actors may be challenged on due process grounds.

The Legal Context

2020 ◽  
pp. xii-20
Author(s):  
Antoinette Kavanaugh ◽  
Thomas Grisso
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Legal Concept ◽  
Life Without Parole ◽  
Legal Context ◽  
Juvenile Sentencing ◽  
Primary Focus ◽  
Developmental Analysis

The chapter begins with a brief introduction, describing the scope and types of evaluations for juvenile sentencing in criminal court, offering the reader relevant terminology and an introduction to the book’s purpose. The primary focus of the chapter is on the relevant law for these evaluations. It describes relevant U.S. Supreme Court cases, especially Miller v. Alabama, which abolished mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles and required developmental analysis to inform juvenile sentencing, as well as Montgomery v. Louisiana, which required resentencing for persons previously receiving mandatory life without parole sentences as juveniles. Miller’s definitions for the standards to be applied in juvenile sentencing and resentencing are then introduced and discussed: the legal concept of “irreparable corruption” and the five “Miller factors” defining characteristics of immaturity relevant for sentencing. Finally, the chapter describes the legal process for juvenile sentencing, identifying the role of Miller evaluations within that process.

Charge Bargaining and Sentence Discount: The Victim's Perspective

1997 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Fenwick
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Crime Control ◽  
Charge Bargaining ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Due Process Rights

This paper draws attention to the interests of the victim in the criminal justice system in relation to the use of charge bargaining and the sentence discount in UK law. The paper argues that debate in this area tends to assume that these practices, particularly use of the graded sentence discount, are in harmony with the needs of crime control and with the interests of victims, but that they may infringe due process rights. Debate tends to concentrate on the due process implications of such practices, while the ready association of victims' interests with those of crime control tends to preclude consideration of a distinctive victim's perspective. This paper therefore seeks to identify the impact of charge bargaining and the sentence discount on victims in order to identify a particular victim's perspective. It goes on to evaluate measures which would afford it expression including the introduction of victim consultation and participation in charge bargains and discount decisions as proposed under the 1996 Victim's Charter. It will be argued, however, that while this possibility has value, victims' interests might be more clearly served by limiting or abandoning the use of these practices.

Misdemeanor Courts, Due Process, and Case Outcomes

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (9) ◽  
pp. 1312-1339
Author(s):  
Alisa Smith ◽  
Sean Maddan
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Due Process Rights ◽  
Sentencing Research ◽  
Research And Policy ◽  
Sentencing Outcomes

Very little research on courts and sentencing outcomes focuses on misdemeanor courts despite the fact that most crime processed through the criminal justice system is misdemeanor in nature. In fact, the overwhelming empiricism in this area is on felony court outcomes at either the federal or state levels. This research utilized a mixed methodology approach, a combination of observation, survey, and secondary data, to explore misdemeanor court outcomes across the State of Florida. In particular, this research focused on the extent of due process afforded misdemeanor defendants and how this impacted case outcomes. Findings indicate an overall lack of due process and awareness of due process rights across the vast majority of cases. This study also explored sentencing outcomes via traditional metrics associated with contemporary sentencing research. Findings suggest that misdemeanor courts processing operate much differently than felony courts. The implications for future research and policy are discussed.

Lesbian, Bisexual, Questioning, Gender-Nonconforming, and Transgender (LBQ/GNCT) Girls in the Juvenile Justice System

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela Irvine ◽  
Aisha Canfield ◽  
Jessica Roa
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Health Care Services ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Juvenile Justice System ◽  
Gender Nonconforming ◽  
Care Services ◽  
System P ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Harmful Effects

LGBTQ youth’s involvement with the juvenile justice system occurs in the context of family conflict, parental rejection of homosexuality, trauma, and hostility at school and in the community. As they run away from abuse, LGBTQ youth are more likely to commit survival crimes and get arrested for offenses related to homelessness. This chapter focuses on the experiences of lesbian, bisexual, queer, and gender-nonconforming girls in juvenile justice settings and examines how biases about gender and sexual orientation affect court decisions and correctional practices. Lack of awareness and training about LGBTQ issues compounds the harmful effects of homophobia, transphobia, and racism and adversely impacts lesbian, queer, and gender-nonconforming girls’ rights to due process, as well as their access to appropriate health care services. This chapter makes recommendations for LGBTQ-affirming practices in juvenile justice settings.

16. Equitable maxims, doctrines, and remedies

2020 ◽  
pp. 563-606
Author(s):  
Gary Watt
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Special Function ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Very Old ◽  
The Common ◽  
Court Of Chancery ◽  
Over Time ◽  
The Way

In general, the leading court cases on equitable doctrines and remedies are very old. The fact that they still have the power to determine modern cases proves that equity is inherently adaptable. Originally developed by the old Court of Chancery in constructive competition with the common law courts, equity is now applied (since the Judicature Acts 1873–1875) by the unified Supreme Court of England and Wales. In addition, equity, as a dimension of law, has retained its special function of restraining or restricting the exercise of legal rights and powers in certain cases. This chapter considers particular principles (including maxims), doctrines (including conversion, satisfaction, performance, and election), and remedies that have been developed over time to help predict the way in which equity will operate in various types of cases.

Attorneys' Fees Reimbursement in Special Education Cases: Smith v. Robinson

1986 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 384-389 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth A. Luckasson
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Private Enforcement ◽  
Legal Remedies ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Due Process Rights ◽  
Legal Training

The Supreme Court in Smith v. Robinson indicated substantial restrictions on the ability of students and their families to recover legal expenses incurred in pursuing their due process rights under the Education of the Handicapped Act. The Act's reliance on private enforcement by parents coupled with the difficulties inherent in attempting to pursue administrative and legal remedies without legal training suggest that Congress intended that reimbursement of attorneys' fees be available.

Restorative Justice through a Children's Rights Lens

2010 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 161-183 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nessa Lynch
Keyword(s):  
Restorative Justice ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Children's Rights ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Children’S Rights ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
Youth Justice ◽  
Rights Of The Child ◽  
Due Process Rights

AbstractRestorative justice is an alternative to the formal criminal justice system which focuses on repairing the harm caused to the victim of the offence, effecting reconciliation between victim and offender, and the re-integration of the offender. Its use is widespread in national youth justice systems. This article will analyse the use of restorative justice in connection with offending by children. It will be argued that despite evidence of endorsement by the Committee on the Rights of the Child, the fundamental concepts of restorative justice are at odds with a children's rights model of youth justice as required by international standards. Not only do similar concerns about due process rights exist for children as for the adult system, it is difficult to reconcile the best interests of the child standard with the victim focused approach of restorative justice, and there are doubts as to whether children have sufficient maturity for remorse and reintegration.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document