Juvenile justice system has evolved in the execution of the law about the affairs of juveniles. The U.S. constitution under the 14 th amendment provides for the protection of the inalienable rights of all Americans. However, the State's constitution might come against the constitution of the U.S. when it comes to applying the statutes. The juvenile justice system of the U.S. has been in place to protect juvenile offenders from unfair and unconstitutional trials.
Gerry Gault, a minor, was arrested and sentenced to seven years in prison for a prank call termed insensitive. Ordinarily, such a delinquent act could have received a 60-day sentence if the accused was represented by a lawyer (Gault, 1967). Ideally, the U.S. guarantees that an attorney represents a minor if the minor does not waive the privileges of acquiring one. In a popular review, the Gault court argued that the assurance of justice for the accused and victim is hinged on the appointing of counsel for the accused (Gault, 1967). Further, the court questioned how a judge could render a fair sentence while being impartial without including counsel for the accused minor.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In Franklin v State of Florida, Franklin is sentenced to 1000 years in prison while he is still a minor. The accused is in prison for aggravated assault with a firearm. The hearing was conducted without counsel, and the accused did not get a chance to cross-examine the witness against him in his defense (Franklin, 2018). Florida is one of the states where juveniles are protected by the 14 th amendment and the Florida constitution. The accused was a minor at the time of the crime and had no chances of getting parole (Franklin, 2018). The court ignored the due process of the law, ensuring that the accused was represented by counsel and given an evidentiary hearing.
In Aalim v Ohio, the State intends to have Aalim transferred to adult courts despite being a minor. The accused is charged with assault and rape of victims who testified against him (Aalim, 2017). The accused, through his lawyer, argues that the transfer is unconstitutional because the law has a provision that requires that juveniles be allowed to demonstrate that they can change. Furthermore, the irrefutable transfer is unfair because it is of the age technicality that separates minors from adults (Aalim, 2017). Furthermore, the Ohio Constitution gives juveniles an undeniable hearing which determines whether they should be transferred to adult courts or not before being transferred to adult court; hence it directly violates the same statute that established juvenile courts. Therefore, although the juvenile justice system has evolved, the general courts have precedence over juvenile courts and manipulate the system when convenient. However, the right to counsel is the best tool for youth offenders to ensure that the system is stretched to compensate for its weaknesses.
References
Franklin v. State , 258 So. 3d 1239 (Fla. 2018).
In re GAULT , 387 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1428, 18 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1967).
State v. Aalim , 150 Ohio St. 3d 489, 2017 Ohio 2956, 83 N.E.3d 883 (2017).
