Morris Kent was charged with rape and robbery while he was being rehabilitated in a probation center from an earlier case in 1961. Kent admitted of being guilty for the offense as well as committing several other cases. Kent’s attorney knew that the juvenile judges would rule over the jurisdiction of the juvenile courts. The Later judge assigned to hear the case entered a motion stating, that the court was waiving jurisdiction after concluding their investigation, to the case to the criminal courts. The presiding judge ignored the motion that had been filed by Kent’s attorney and in fact, he never ruled on the motion.
At this time, the judge did not describe the grounds for waiving or the methods used to investigate the allegations. Kent’s attorney argued that the waiver was invalid and he, therefore, sought for dismissal of the criminal indictment of the accused. The attorney went on to file a writ of habeas corpus and an appeal asking the state to justify Kent’s detention (Pope 1995). Both writ and appeal were rejected by the appellate courts and refused to scrutinize the judges level of investigation hence accepting the waiver as valid. Kent’s attorney moved on to appeal to the supreme court arguing that the judges had denied Kent his constitutional rights because he was a minor as well as convicting him with an incomplete investigation. The Supreme Court judges ruled that the waiver was indeed invalid and that the lower court judges would have given their reasons as to why they waived the case.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
If Kent was an adult, he had a constitutional right to a jury trial and even could have applied for a bail or a bond. The accused would either plead to be guilty or not guilty, and the jury would have determined the case using the formal evidence presented before the court and decides if the suspect committed a criminal act. If the suspect is found guilty, either the court determines the amount of fine the accused would have paid or the term of sentence, he received. The previous criminal case records of the suspect count before the jury and the sentencing philosophy is based on proportionality and punishment and determines the type of offense of the accused. Finally, the individual guilty must have been established based on the offense he was charged to have committed.
Juveniles are accused of delinquent acts as the crimes they have committed taken to be of less seriousness in nature. The jury assumes that at the time the minor was committing the crime he/she could not make rational or logical decisions and so they are exempted from going through the normal criminal courts unless the acts the individual has committed is a serious offense. The juvenile courts allow the juveniles to present their evidence in an informal manner and even sometimes use informal language. The juveniles do not negotiate whether they are guilty or not, the way adults do. The juvenile courts are meant more to save the juveniles rather than punish them for the crimes they have committed. The courts take simple measures while handling the juvenile cases unlike when they have adult cases. The courts assign social workers to investigate and rehabilitate the juveniles by curfews, counseling, parole, or sending them to detention facilities.
The juveniles’ court sessions are confidential only close family members are allowed to attend the proceeding. On the other hand, adults are tried basing on the type of crime offenses they have committed. The adults are fined or detained depending on the crime they have committed (Schmalleger 2009). Instead of rehabilitation, they are punished to ensure through fines or detention to prevent them to committing similar criminal acts in future. The adults are open for a public trial, and the criminal information can be accessed by the public unlike the Juvenile information is confidential and can only be accessed by courts. The adult court system only allows use of formal evidence to establish the guilt of the suspect compared to the juvenile system where they are allowed to use informal language to present their cases easily.
The waiver is the adjudication process whereby the prosecutor decides to transfer the accused case from the juvenile courts to the criminal court. Most juveniles transferred to adult justice systems are likely to be at least the age of 16 years and above. However, 13 years old children may be taken to the adult courts depending on the nature of the cases they have committed. If the case is a serious criminal act, then the accused must be transferred to the criminal system. The judges of the juvenile courts may waive the jurisdiction of the juvenile courts in handling the cases, in this instance the case will be transferred. The previous records of the accused play a bigger role for the prosecutor to file the case in the criminal courts (Champion 2001). If the accused seem to have repeated similar criminal offenses, they are transferred as the prosecutor is convinced that the minor can longer be handled or rehabilitated by the juvenile systems. The long criminal record of the juvenile is a determinant for the transfer of a case. The most common way of transfer of the juvenile is through the prosecutors' request to the juvenile judges. The judges determine whether to transfer the minor to adult criminal courts depending on the juvenile background, willingness to reform through the system of minors or the juvenile court record.
Kent was charged just as the adults would be convicted. First, his previous record played a significant role for the judges to waive the jurisdiction of the juvenile courts. Am sure the judges ruled on the motion depending on Kent’s background, court records, and his willingness to reform. He had committed other offenses before the last charges. At the time, he was charged with robbery and rape; he was going through probation clear evidence that juvenile system had tried before to train Kent to be of positive contribution to the society. The other reason he was convicted as an adult was, he had committed a serious offense that could not be treated as delinquent act.
References
Champion, D. J. (2001). The Juvenile Justice System: Delinquency, Processing, And The Law. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall .
Schmalleger, F. (2009). Criminal Justice Today : An introductory text for the 21st century. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
American Lutheran Church, & United States of America. (1980 ). Juvenile Justice System.
Pope, C. E., & Feyerherm, W. (1995). Minorities and the Juvenile Justice System . Research Summary.
