constitutional rights violation
Under the federal system, a more systematic approach should have been used where the accusations were investigated properly to ensure that there was sufficient evidence to go forward with the case. The witness and his statements would have been reviewed by the investigating bodies while simultaneously investigating the accused. Based on all this, the attorneys would have looked over the results and findings and then decided to go ahead with the arrest. It would be handled differently by making an arrest against a warrant and the offender’s rights would have been read to him so that he will be informed about the charge and accusations behind the reasons of his arrest (Stahl, 2017).
An appropriate court ordered option for Jack would be calling Jack for an oral examination which would give Jack a chance to explain his actions. This would also prevent any violations of his constitutional rights while ensuring that since Jack was a juvenile, he was dealt with properly yet leniently given the extent of his crime. Since both Jack and Diane were juveniles, so punishment in terms of fines, learning and educational camp training, punishment training over abusive programs will be more suitable for the offenders.
During the investigation process of Diane’s case, she was not accorded the rights that she deserved, her constitutional rights were violated. A juvenile has the right to Miranda warning given by a police officer to the juvenile after they are accused of committing a crime. A juvenile has the right to be given a notice of the delinquency charges that he or she faces. The notice is important as it helps in the preparation of the hearing. Juveniles also have a right to have an attorney who is required to address any questions a juvenile could be having and explain to them how the process works. Also, Juveniles have a right to question witnesses called to testify by the state, through the attorney during hearing.
As to why Diane’s due process and constitutional rights were violated, the following arguments can be used to justify: Firstly, she was not provided with a notice explaining that she was charged with theft. Also, according to Guarino-Ghezzi (2017), the attorney should speak for the juvenile in court, defending them against the charges facing them. Diane was not given a chance to have an attorney to speak for her which is a violation of her constitutional right implying that this provision was disregarded. Failure to give Diane a Miranda warning implies violation of the constitutional rights since Diane didn’t get a chance to cross-examine witnesses as well as have an attorney.
Various defense arguments can be established from Diane’s case. First, she is only a minor who was innocent in the whole ordeal and she operated under instructions. It is Jack who handed the boxes of Candy to her so she could place them in her purse. Secondly, it was not the intention of Diane to steal the items from the store. Also, when Jack asked her to meet him in the store, she never had an idea that Jack would steal, otherwise she would have avoided going to meet Jack. If she intended to steal, she would have denied the claims that she was caught with the items. However, she confesses their act during the interrogation with the police which proves that she was innocent in the whole act. Also, it is not Diane who picked the items; all she did was keep them. So, ultimately, Diane is innocent as she was not the one who practiced the theft act.
Diane’s case would have been handled differently in the federal system. Firstly, she would have been arrested and taken to custody where she would have been informed about her legal rights. Her parents or guardian would then have been immediately notified about her arrest. She would then have been brought before the magistrate for arraignment and after a hearing before the counsel; the magistrate orders the detainment of the juvenile for her safety or to guarantee subsequent court appearances. Within 30 days of federal custody, delinquency hearing then takes place (Siegel & Welsh, 2014).
An appropriate court-ordered option based on the fact pattern from the defense attorney and prosecutorial perspective would be retribution and or restitution. Restitution is compensating for loss or injury while retribution is punishment inflicted on someone for a criminal act or a wrong done (Tuckness, 2010).Diane would be ordered to pay a given amount of money to repay the stolen item since her crime is minor as a mode of punishment.
Leiber, M., Bishop, D., & Chamlin, M. B. (2011). Juvenile justice decision‐making before and after the implementation of the disproportionate minority contact (DMC) mandate. Justice Quarterly, 28(3), 460-492.
Loeber, R., & Farrington, D. P. (Eds.). (2012). From juvenile delinquency to adult crime: Criminal careers, justice policy, and prevention. Oxford university press.
Slobogin, C. (2013). Treating juveniles like juveniles: Getting rid of transfer and expanded adult court jurisdiction. Tex. Tech L. Rev., 46, 103.
Elrod, P., & Ryder, R. S. (2013). Juvenile justice: A social, historical, and legal perspective. Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
Feedback in the Three Milestones
You have each of the elements needed in the milestone assignment. What you will need to do before you submit the final paper, is to apply the following recommendation in the feedback, before submitting the final paper. Developing the responses, using direct quotes from the references you provided will help to articulate the answers. This will give more factual details to form a stronger research based paper. You have a good start for this section. Make the revisions before submitting the final paper and you will have strong final paper.