DePaul L. Rev., 1992

Journal of Adolescent Health, 2004

1986

2. The public's perception of a current national juvenile crime wave may be inconsistent with reality. "Current trends suggest that after many years of increase there is a significant downturn in the level of delinquency. However, much of the current public debate is based on an assumption of a continued rise in youth crime.

Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 2011

During the late 1960s and 1970s, the US Supreme Court applied most of the basic procedural guarantees in adult criminal cases to juveniles, thereby constitutionally defining the contemporary juvenile justice process. In less than a decade, the Court held that juveniles charged with delinquent offenses (what would be crimes were they adults) had the right to be represented by counsel and receive notice of the charges, as well as the trial rights of the privilege against compelled selfincrimination and the right to confrontation and cross-examination. 1 The Court recognized that delinquent offenses required proof beyond a reasonable doubt, 2 and the prohibition against double jeopardy also applied in delinquency proceedings. 3 Although every procedure in a juvenile delinquency proceeding did not have to be identical to that in an adult criminal trial (juries were held not to be required in delinquency adjudications 4), even less comprehensive proceedings than a juvenile adjudication, transfers to criminal court, now demanded a degree of procedural regularity and formality previously unknown in juvenile court. 5 After that period, the Court stayed out of regulating the juvenile system, even throughout the dramatic increase in its punitive aspects during the 1980s and 1990s. It upheld the constitutionality of the juvenile death penalty in 4 homicide cases Financial disclosure and conflicts of interest: the author has nothing to disclose.

Journal of Pediatric Neuropsychology, 2023

In Roper v. Simmons (2005), the United States Supreme Court raised the minimum age at which someone could be subjected to capital punishment, ruling that no one under the age of 18 at the time of their crime could be sentenced to death. The present article discusses the legal context and rationale by which the Court established the current agebased limit on death penalty eligibility as well as the scientific basis for a recent American Psychological Association Resolution that recommended extending that limit to include members of the "late adolescent class" (i.e., persons from 18-20 years old). In addition, we present new data that address the little-discussed but important racial/ethnic implications of these age-based limits to capital punishment, both for the already established Roper-exclusion and the APA-proposed exclusion for the late adolescent class. In fact, a much higher percentage of persons in the late adolescent class who are sentenced to death in the post-Roper era were non-white, suggesting that their age-based exclusion would help to remedy this problematic pattern.

University of Oregon Law Review, 2008

No court has addressed the constitutional significance of sentencing juvenile murder accomplices who play a minimal role in the underlying killing to life in prison without parole. Indeed, no precedent makes clear whether it is cruel and unusual to impose that sentence on juvenile offenders convicted of first-degree murder pursuant to either the felony-murder doctrine or an accomplice theory of liability, notwithstanding their minimal involvement in the victim's death. To investigate this unanswered question, Part I of this Article explores the imposition of life without parole sentences on juvenile non-killers convicted of murder via either the felony-murder doctrine or accomplice liability. In doing so, Part I attempts to illustrate the problematic nature of imposing these sentences on less culpable juvenile non-killers convicted of first-degree murder by offering examples at the state and federal levels of defendants who received identical sentences yet played different roles in the victim's death. Part II begins by outlining the evolution of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Eighth Amendment's 'cruel and unusual' clause and continues by examining its application of the clause to juveniles. Part II concludes by evaluating the application by lower courts of the Supreme Court's Eighth Amendment jurisprudence to juvenile punishment. Finally, Part III asserts that automatically sentencing juvenile non-killers to life in prison without parole renders lower courts unable either to individualize the juvenile's sentence or exercise judicial discretion in an effort to do so. Part III then argues that the Supreme Court's Eighth Amendment jurisprudence provides no remedy because it is ill-equipped to handle a juvenile non-killer's Eighth Amendment challenge to a sentence of life imprisonment without parole following a murder conviction obtained pursuant to a charge of felony-murder or accomplice liability. Taken together, Part III concludes, these deficiencies allow for further erosion of the ideals underlying juvenile punishment.

“We are guilty of many errors and many faults, but our worst crime is abandoning the children, neglecting the foundation of life. Many of the things we need can wait, the child cannot, right now is the time his bones are being formed, his blood is being made and his senses are being developed. To him, we cannot answer ‘tomorrow’. His name is “Today.” Generally speaking, the term refers to a large variety of disapproved behaviours of children and adolescents which the society does not approve of, and for which some kind of admonishment, punishment or corrective measure is justified in the public interest. The parents and other elderly members of the family must provide adequate opportunities for their youngsters to develop their personality. This is possible through proper education and training and child care. In regard of education, Indian education system is more inclined to the Western education system, vocational education and commercialization of education. On the cost of commercialization of Indian legislator must ensure for incorporation of the important Subject like Moral Ethics upto secondary education. Moral Ethics will act as a shield to concrete their relations with ancestors and the vulnerable juveniles will be safer from the criminal atmosphere.

Crime & Delinquency, 2011

On March 1, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the execution of offenders under the age of 18 at the time of their criminal offense was unconstitutional. Although many welcomed this decision, some individuals still remain concerned that the elimination of the specter of capital punishment will inevitably increase homicidal behavior among juveniles by reducing the prospect of deterrence. Using monthly data from the Supplemental Homicide Reports and a multiple time-series research design, the authors investigate the impact of the Roper v. Simmons decision on homicides perpetrated by juveniles in the 20 states affected by the law. Maximum likelihood results reveal that the repeal of the juvenile death penalty has had no effect on juvenile homicidal behavior.

City University of New York Law Review, 2002