Supreme Court Decisions

About: Supreme Court Decisions is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 1804 publications have been published within this topic receiving 17066 citations.

Factors Affecting Juvenile Waiver to Adult Court in a Large Midwestern Jurisdiction

Abstract: This research was supported by funds from the McNair Scholars Program at the University of Central MissouriIntroductionSince its inception in 1899, the juvenile justice system has been plagued by public reaction to juvenile delinquency and criticism over its tactics and philosophy. One of the latest practices to come under fire is the transfer of juvenile offenders to the adult criminal court. Recent Supreme Court decisions in Roper v. Simmons (2005), Graham v. Florida (2010) and Miller v. Alabama (2012) have highlighted the controversial nature of the practice and a movement toward less punitive policies for young offenders. Evidence has surfaced that juveniles are truly different from adults because of key brain function development, as well as evidence that transfer laws are not effective nor a deterrent (Arya & Augarton, 2008; Griffin, 2008). In addition, a substantial amount of literature documents that minorities are disproportionately affected by such laws (Poe-Yamagata & Jones, 2000).These issues are far-reaching and certainly of great concern, but two specific issues regarding the juveniles themselves highlight the importance of this topic. First, juveniles transferred to the adult system are typically seen as the worst offenders. According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), in 2005, courts in the U.S. with juvenile jurisdiction handled 1.7 million delinquency cases (Adams & Addie, 2009). More than half (56%) of these cases were handled formally, meaning a petition was filed and either adjudication or a waiver hearing was requested (Adams & Addie, 2010). These proportions have remained fairly steady for the last few years (Adams & Addie, 2010). However, less than 1% of petitioned juvenile cases in the U.S. were judicially waived to be tried in the adult criminal court system. It would be easy to assume that this small percentage of youth waived to the adult system is made up of juveniles who are the "worst" violent or chronic offenders.Second, it is not the transfer to the adult system in and of itself, but the possible sentencing to an adult correctional facility that poses the most risk. Once convicted and sentenced in adult court, often the only placement available is an adult jail or prison which can be extremely detrimental to youth. In 2005, 21% of all substantiated inmate-to- inmate sexual assault victims were youth under agel8; in addition, youth under age 18 are 36 times more likely to commit suicide in adult jail than in a juvenile detention facility (Arya, Ryan, Sandoval, & Kudma, 2007). Given the serious offenders and offenses that may be involved, as well as the consequences of transferring juveniles to the criminal justice system, it is important to assess which factors are influencing these decisions. The purpose of this paper is to report the results of a research study conducted in a large Midwestern jurisdiction that sought to identify the variables that predict transfer decisions. Information regarding the types of waiver and key statistics on trends in transfer procedure will be presented, followed by the methodology, results of the present study, and the conclusions and policy recommendations.Types of WaiverThere are three ways that a juvenile can be waived to adult criminal court: judicial waiver, prosecutorial waiver, or legislative waiver. Waiver provisions differ from state to state in the degree of decision-making flexibility allowed to the courts. Some states make the waiver decision entirely discretionary. Others set up a presumption in favor of waiver, and still others specify circumstances under which waiver is mandatory (Griffin, Torbet & Szymanski, 1998).Judicial waivers may be discretionary, presumptive, or mandatory. Discretionary waivers rely on an individualized assessment of the case by a juvenile court judge to determine if the juvenile meets minimum waiver criteria (Griffin, 2008). …

Beyond Roe, after Casey: the present and future of a “fundamental” right

Abstract: Although the US Supreme Court recently reaffirmed a womans right to end a pregnancy before viability many women remain unable to exercise that right because their access to abortion is limited. 83% of the counties in the nation have no abortion providers and many women must travel hundreds of miles to obtain an abortion. In its Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania vs. Casey decision the Supreme Court upheld what it felt were the central tenets of Roe vs. Wade but appointed an "undue burden" standard instead of a "strict scrutiny" standard for the courts to use when determining whether or not a state restriction is to be allowed. This means that women must prove "undue" harm from a restriction. 2 other new concepts contained in Casey are that the state has an interest in fetal life throughout a pregnancy and that the government does not have to remain neutral in an abortion case even if it did not involve the issue of funding. This means that states can try to discourage a womans choice to have an abortion. Since Casey the Supreme Court has refused to review several abortion cases and federal courts have taken action allowing abortion restrictions to go into effect in Pennsylvania Utah South Dakota North Dakota and Mississippi. State courts in Ohio Oklahoma Tennessee Alaska New York and West Virginia have also heard abortion restriction cases in the past year. These restrictions involved a waiting period criminalization a residency requirement a community hospitals ban on abortions and state funding for abortion. Following the Casey decision efforts were made to codify Roe by reintroducing the Freedom of Choice Act in Congress. During the committee process however the bill was amended in such a way as to make pro-choice advocates doubt that the amended version will be able to accomplish the aims of the original Act. Because the High Court ruled in Bray vs. Alexandria Womens Health Clinic that the ability of abortion clinics to prevent antichoice blockades is limited since the blockades do not violate civil rights laws Congress is advancing a measure called "The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act" to counteract the harassment which occurs outside of the clinics. State legislatures have taken action to impose mandatory delays and biased counseling on abortion-seekers restrict the access of young women to abortion prohibit Medicaid funding for abortion require unnecessary reporting regulations on the part of abortion services and institute protective measures for reproductive rights. Although the right acknowledged in the Roe vs. Wade decision continues to exist the struggle for womens reproductive autonomy must go forward to assure constitutional protection for the right to choose and guaranteed access to that right for all women.

Parental Authority and Child Custody in Mexico

Abstract: This article examines the definition of parental authority, discusses the roots of this institution, and analyzes the treatment of parental authority in Mexican law. The author focuses on the Mexican Federal Civil Code and other documents relating to its provisions, as well as a number of Mexican Supreme Court decisions.

The Legacy of the Magna Carta in Recent Supreme Court Decisions on Detainees' Rights

Abstract: The legacy of the Magna Carta is apparent in the Supreme Court's recent decisions regarding detainees' rights. Asked to evaluate strong claims of executive power, the Court has had occasion to consider the origin and scope of habeas corpus, which many scholars see as a product of the Magna Carta. The majority opinion in Boumediene v. Bush (2008) traced the history of the writ of habeas corpus back to the Magna Carta and relied on that lineage to rule that Guantanamo detainees were entitled to petition for habeas corpus, even though Congress had explicitly denied them that right in the 2006 Military Commissions Act (MCA) and the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act (DTA).