juvenile justice system

As per the rules passed by criminal justice system, an offender below the age of 18 years will always be considered and sentenced under juvenile case by the juvenile justice system that will be proceed differently than adult cases (Leiber, Bishop & Chamlin, 2011).

In contrast to adult offenders, Diane and Jack will be treated as juveniles because of their minority age. Unlike adult offenders, they will be taken as delinquent offenders. Both of them were 13 years of age; therefore, they will be charged under the category of minors. On the other hand, adult offenders are always treated under the adult criminal justice system, so their punishments are also hard as compared to the juvenile justice system. Furthermore, Diane and Jack will be treated as juvenile-offenders because minor age criminals can only be sentenced under a judge, unlike adult offenders who are sentenced under the decisions of juries (Loeber & Farrington, 2012).

It is very important to treat juvenile cases differently than adults because of their minor ages. An adult offender used to have hard punishments, but in juvenile cases punishments are designed to teach a lesson to the offender so that he will refrain himself from doing illegal acts next time in his life (Slobogin, 2013). As the offenders less than 18 years are young having minimal maturity levels to differentiate between the dos and don’ts of life. Therefore, a simple lesson and minor punishment can teach them to be a responsible adult in the future. Keeping in view the maturity level of juveniles in mind, young offenders are usually susceptible to change. Therefore, if they are treated properly they can make a positive change in themselves.

In the past, juvenile offenders had been treated in the jails and charged penalties against theirs criminal acts. During the 19th century, states were facing extreme poverty and societal issues so the ratio of juvenile offences was also very high. After that, rules had been passed to oppose putting young offenders in the jails with adults. During the year 1825, New York House of Refugee has created educational schools for juvenile offenders and juvenile correction systems as well. During the hearing process, due process rights will be afforded to Jack and Diane. As minor age criminals, they will be granted following rights: Right to have guardian, Right to file action against the offence, Right to challenge the judge decision, Right to remain silent and admit their crime. If Jack and Diane will be found guilty, the court may make the following possible court ordered options for both of them. They will be taken to a learning camp, Attend substance training on abuse programs, mental health programs, Payment of fines.

Jack’s due process and constitutional rights were violated by the police during the investigation. Firstly, Jack has a right to inform which entails the police informing the alleged criminal regarding his crime while providing evidence as well. The police did not follow this procedure and instead decided to violate Jack’s right by escorting him to the police station for questioning. Jack wasn’t informed of his crime, nor any evidence had been provided to him, rather he faced a hard police investigation, questioning regarding the crime he offended. Hence, the right that was violated required Jack to be informed of his crime at the moment of his arrest (Friendly, 1965). Looking at the point where the police apprehended Jack, the police did not inform Jack regarding the accusations and failed to take permission to search them which shows us that the searching right of the accused was also violated. Lastly, as the police only recovered the candy boxes from Diane’s purse, accusing Jack based on insufficient evidence brought into light, substantiality of the evidence on the basis of which Jack was charged with theft despite pleading guilty.

Moreover, the main argument is that Jack was charged with theft despite insufficient evidence as no candy was found from Jack. Hence this would be used to nullify the charge of theft. The police followed and searched Jack due to Moe’s testimony regarding stealing and assault. According to Moe, he saw Diane and Jack stealing candy from his store. The main argument according to the scenario is that while Diane and Jack were questioned, Diane confessed the crime about stealing candy and jack’s role in the theft. Additionally, candy was found in Diane’s purse that was put there by Jack and is consistent with the accusation by Moe and confession by Diane. Hence, despite misconduct on the part of the police, the evidence suggests that Jack was involved. Thus, this argument would be used in the prosecution of Jack.