In Kent v. United States, in 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court noted that
the “objectives” of the juvenile courts are “to provide measures of guidance and rehabilitation for the child and protection for society
, not to fix criminal responsibility, guilt and punishment.
What crimes did Morris Kent commit?
* At the age of sixteen the appellant, Morris Kent, was accused of
committing several robberies and rapes
. He was waived by the juvenile court and indicted on three counts of housebreaking, three counts of robbery, and two counts of rape.
Did the judge agree or disagree with Kent?
A jury found
Kent guilty
and sentenced him to serve 30-90 years in prison. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed, although it noted that the juvenile court judge provided no reason for the waiver.
Why was the decision to Kent to adult jurisdiction in Kent vus unconstitutional?
On March 21, 1966, five years after his indictment, the Supreme Court ruled that
the waiver of jurisdiction by the Juvenile Court was invalid because the Juvenile Court had not actually conducted an appropriately extensive investigation
.
What is the significance of the Kent case?
Kent v. United States is
a landmark decision that established a bar of due process for youth waived to the adult system
. Since the decision, legislatures across the country have passed laws protecting the rights of youth who become involved with the justice system, but there is still a lot of work to do.
What happened to Morris Kent?
What happened to Morris Kent?
He was 21 at the time of the Supreme Court's decision
(and outside of the juvenile court's jurisdiction), so his case was remanded to the district court for a de novo waiver hearing. … The appellate court vacated his criminal convictions. Morris Kent was eventually released from St.
What was the holding in Kent v United States quizlet?
Kent's case was later taken to the Supreme Court, which ruled that
the juvenile court couldn't waive its jurisdiction over a juvenile without having a formal hearing in which the juvenile's defense can argue any objections
.
What did the court rule in the 1970 case of In re Winship?
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970), was a United States Supreme Court decision that held that “
the Due Process clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged
.” It established this burden in all cases in all states ( …
What did the court rule in the 1970 case of In re Winship quizlet?
In the case of In re Winship, Winship was
sentenced to 18 months in a training school for stealing money from a women's purse
. … This case established ground rules for determining whether a juvenile has knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights.
What year was Kent vs US?
United States, 383 U.S. 541 (
1966
)
What happened in the In re Gault case?
Lower Court Ruling:
The juvenile court judge committed Gault to juvenile detention until he attained the age of 21
. At that time, no appeal was permitted in juvenile cases by Arizona law; therefore, a habeas petition was filed in the Supreme Court of Arizona and referred to the Superior Court for a hearing.
What is the case ex parte Crouse 1839 about?
Ex parte Crouse is a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision from 1839. Although it is known as a major appellate case that
upheld the operation of the nineteenth-century houses of refuge
, Crouse was more important in what it established for the future juvenile justice system in the twentieth century.
Which of the following is most likely to be considered a status offender?
A status offense is a noncriminal act that is considered a law violation only because of a youth's status as a minor. 1 Typical status offenses include
truancy, running away from home, violating curfew, underage use of alcohol, and general ungovernability
.
What happened in Breed v Jones?
A
juvenile court found 17-year-old Gary Jones guilty of acts that would constitute robbery if he were tried as an adult
. After the hearing, the court determined that Jones should be prosecuted as an adult. … The court also held that allowing the criminal verdict to stand would destroy confidence in the judicial system.
Which right is generally granted only to juveniles?
The United States Supreme Court has held that in juvenile commitment proceedings, juvenile courts must afford to juveniles basic constitutional protections, such as advance notice of the charges,
the right to counsel
, the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and the right to remain silent.
