Criminal Law Foundations: Impact of Rights of the Accused in Adult and Juvenile Court Proceedings (Research Paper Sample)

Criminal Law Foundations: Impact of Rights of the Accused in Adult and Juvenile Court Proceedings Name: Course/Number: Due Date: Faculty Name: Criminal Law Foundations: Impact of Rights of the Accused in Adult and Juvenile Court Proceedings Introduction The United States Constitution contains several safeguards of justice in the form of the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eight constitutional amendments. Respectively, these amendments provide protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, demand indictment through and trial by a grand jury, establish the accused right to counsel during a public, speedy, and impartial trial, re-affirm the right to a jury trial, and, lastly, prohibit imposition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment. This author will provide an examination of how the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth constitutional amendments affect both adult and juvenile court proceedings. Succeeding sections of the paper will discuss the safeguards provided by these particular amendments, describe their operational impact on juvenile and adult courts, and conclude with a summary of the most important points. Constitutional Amendments State violence in the form of arrests, seizures, searches, and surveillance is critical in the projection of power or the protection of its distribution and the reinforcement of social norms and expectations (Taslitz, 2006). Indeed, this form of sanctioned violence protects public safety, but can often be abused in everyday policing. The Fourth Amendment is intended to tame use of force where a citizen’s voluntary assent is sidestepped. The Amendment constitutionalizes the will of the People over the expressions of State power. The decision on when, why, and how to conduct searches is limited with regard to the demand for non-arbitrary enforcement of police force such that searches and seizures are reasonable (Taslitz, 2006). Furthermore, the amendment restrains State power within evidentiary limits, hence the demand for probable cause in the issuing and execution of warrants. This principle extends beyond the connotations of legal technicality and is a foundational constitutional doctrine. This doctrine is especially manifest in the exclusionary rule (Re, 2014). This exclusionary rule holds that if evidence is collected at the price of the defendant’s inviolable rights, said evidence is inadmissible in a court of law. This rule is intended to provide disincentives to violations conducted by police and prosecutorial personnel at the behest of their employer, the State (Re, 2014). Just as with the Fourth, the Fifth Amendments contains provisions that further safeguard accused persons from overreach or misconduct during (custodial) interrogations. The amendment provides legal protection from compulsion as a safeguard against confessions obtained through unjust means such as torture and the threat of violence. This protection is operationalized in the Miranda rights statement “right to remain silent” and can be otherwise invoked by “taking the fifth” (Kusha, 2004). Apart from protections from compulsory self-incrimination, the amendment also enforces the double jeopardy and substantive due process principles that prohibit state or civil actors from arbitrarily denying private citizens their rights outside the explicit sanction of law and that, once acquitted, a defendant cannot later be tried for the same offense. The amendment’s other clauses establish the right to grand jury proceedings and provide the definitional basis for felony convictions (Kusha, 2004). Lastly, the Sixth Amendment builds on the previously mentioned criminal justice safeguards. More specifically, the amendment’s expansive provisions contribute immensely to the constitutional criminal process (Garcia, 1992). Under the Sixth, criminal defendants have an inviolable right to a speedy, public, and impartial jury trial. Once found guilty, defendants are protected from an escalation of punishment that exceeds statutory maxima. Additionally, the amendment affirms the right of the criminal defendant to be furnished with sufficiently detailed notices of indictment, retain the right to cross-examine witnesses, enjoy the ability to compulsorily obtain witnesses to fundamentally sustain own defence, and be represented by legal counsel unless, within the limits of law and judicial opinion, opting for pro se legal representation (Garcia, 1992). Taken together with the Fifth Amendment’s provisions, the legal protections of these two constitutional edits are operationalized, for instance, through the Miranda warning (Stansby, 1967). Impact of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Constitutional Amendments to Juvenile Criminal Proceedings vis-à-vis Adult Proceedings The Federal Juvenile Delinquency Code, structured from the Act, defines a juvenile offender as an individual alleged to have carried out a penal offense prior to attaining the age of majority. Crucially, activation of juvenile criminal statutes occurs if the crime was allegedly committed prior to the eighteenth birthday or the information was filed while the suspect was still under twenty-one years of age. Beyond that point, suspects are tried as adult offenders (Doyle, 2004). The juvenile justice system is uniquely and deliberately different from adult proceedings and this section is devoted to elaborating on the extent of these differences. The differences are hinted at by the difference in legal terminology. For instance, juvenile offenders allegedly commit delinquent acts as opposed to “crimes” and attend adjudication hearings in the stead of trials during which dispositions are issued in the place of verdicts. The purpose of juvenile delinquency proceedings is not to administer retributive punishment, but rehabilitate and sentencing is determined in line with the minor’s best interest. Therefore, juvenile court proceedings are non-criminal in nature and constitute an informal civil inquiry into the delinquency in question and the prospects and means of rehabilitation. As a matter of fact, this non-criminal nature is a contributing factor to the substantive difference between these two systems (Rubin, 1967). Consequently, juveniles cannot enjoy the full panoply of rights extended to adult criminal defendants. For instance, alleged juvenile offenders do not enjoy the constitutional or statutory right to jury trial (Foley, 1970; Rosenberg, 2009). Furthermore, juveniles are not eligible for receiving a public trial owing to the probable risk of shattering the protective nature of the proceedings and, along the same line, do not exercise the right to bail. Regardless, juveniles enjoy certain constitutional, statutory, and judicial protections. For instance, the absolute right to legal counsel is intact for juvenile “defendants”. In addition, up until 1970, the evidentiary threshold of proof in juvenile hearings was the lessened measure of preponderance of evidence, but has since been upgraded to the exhaustive demand to prove culpability “beyond a reasonable doubt” (Cohen, 1970; Rosenberg, 2009; Varat et al., 2009). Juveniles must also receive advance notice of the hearing, retain the right to witness cross-examination, and have the right against self-incrimination (Rosenberg, 2009; Rubin, 1967). Fourth amendment protections against illegal search and seizures and the consideration of evidence illegally obtained have also been extended to alleged juvenile offenders (Hanley, 1981; Rosenberg, 2009; Safford Unified School District v. Reading, 2009). Juveniles also enjoy protection under the Due Process and Double Jeopardy clauses (Rosenberg, 2009). With that said, alleged delinquents also enjoy special protections. Case in point is that the right to advance notice also extends to parents and other surrogates and who must also be notified of the right to receive free legal counsel. Any waiver of this right must be accompanied by parental or guardian consent (Grisso, 2013). Parents and other legal custodians may also be required to provide testimony during adjudicatory hearings. Adjudication records are sealed and once the juvenile attains the age of majority, usually expunged. Juvenile offenders are also protected from capital punishment (Roper v. Simmons, 2005) and right to prelease if nonviolent. Between 1985 and 2013, juvenile courts in America handled over forty million delinquent cases (Hockenberry & Puzzanchera, 2015). This estimate is based on the activity of juvenile courts and, in particular, the number of juvenile cases referred. The juvenile court process begins with case referrals, that is, cases that are initially evaluated by a court intake department (OJJDP, 2011). This department determines the legal sufficiency of a case and selects which cases are to be resolved formally through a petition that will ultimately lead to...