Juvenile Rights

Juvenile Rights

Name

Institution

Tutor

Course

Date

Juvenile Rights

The juvenile justice system developed over a hundred years ago in the United States of America is because juveniles are different from adults both physically and intellectually. This called for the separation of minor offenders from adult offenders in the justice system. Before a juvenile offender is presented before a court of law, various standards must be followed. Upon the arrest of a juvenile, various conflicting public policies are at work, and court officials must therefore ensure that a juvenile’s constitutional rights are protected, and recognize the inherent naivety and immaturity of the juvenile offender in the context of their constitutional rights. The judge must therefore assess the ability of the juvenile to understand and waive one or more of their constitutional rights and therefore give up their rights to testify on their own behalf.

In existence are various methods proposed to enable judges to determine the capability of the juvenile to understand or waive their constitutional rights. These include the totality of circumstances test and the per se rule of statement of admissibility. The totality of circumstances test is a nine-point standard used by majority of states in the United States of America to determine if the juvenile properly waived their rights. The per se rule of admissibility was adopted by some states such as the Supreme Court of Kansas. This court deemed the totality of circumstances test to be insufficient in ensuring that the child makes an intelligent and knowing waiver of their rights.

The totality of circumstances test has been traditionally used to determine the validity of a juvenile’s waiver of what is commonly known as their Miranda’s rights. In this nine-point standard, the role of the judge to evaluate all the factors including the characteristics of the juvenile in the context of the procedural factors that surround the interrogation. This is to determine if the waiver was made knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently. The personal characteristics of the juvenile in this test include age and education. The other seven factors include procedural considerations such as police interrogation methods and knowledge of charges, the juvenile’s physical condition, intelligence, background, mental capacity, their experience with police and the courts including prior contact. In addition to these, the totality of circumstances test examines whether the juvenile has the capacity to understand the warnings given, the nature of their Fifth Amendment Rights, and the consequences of waiving those rights.

This nine-point standard has been used in various cases previously. However, there is no case law that suggests how to evaluate all the considerations systematically in the totality of circumstances test. The way in which these considerations are applied in a case is a matter of judicial discretion. This approach assumes that juvenile courts have the ability to evaluate these factors in the nine-point standard in a competent manner.

In my opinion, the nine-point standard is unfair. The considerations used, may not be well applicable to all minor offenders in the same measure. For instance, the use of age as a consideration is insufficient because adolescent development is not a linear progression tied to chronological age. The age at which children start to mature physically and intellectually varies greatly from one adolescent to another. The background and experiences also vary greatly among adolescents, especially those who have been arrested before for delinquent behavior. In addition to these, the totality test only protects the juvenile retrospectively after they may have improperly waived their rights, and therefore only serves as a remedy as opposed to a safeguard.

Another way in which this nine-point standard is unfair is that it leads to inconsistency from one case to another because the determination of the juvenile’s rights being disregarded is based entirely on the discretion of the judges. Prior to a court trial, courts analyze whether the juvenile was advised about their rights. The fact that a Miranda warning was given to the juvenile, and they indicate that they understand their rights; this may not be the case and the juvenile may not understand the long-term consequences of their statements, or that a right is something that belongs to them and cannot be taken away by the law officer.

The nine-point standard used by judges to determine the capability of juveniles to understand or waive their constitutional rights should not be binding in federal district courts. The judge should examine the case at hand and determine the applicability of these points in the particular case. This is because of the diverse nature of cases.

References

Feld, B. C. (2006, November 22). Juveniles’ Competence to Exercise Miranda Rights: An Empirical Study of Policy and Practice. Minnesota Law Review.

Grisso, T. (1980, December). Juvenies’ Capacities to Waive Miranda Rights: An Empirical Analysis. California Law Review, 68(6).

Sanders, J., & Hamilton, V. L. (2007). Handbook of Research in Law. Springer Science & Business Media.

Place an Order

Plagiarism Free!

Scroll to Top