juvenile justice

You are a judge on an appellate court that has been asked to overrule the trial court in the following case. There is no dispute as to the facts.

Sixteen-year-old Chester head-butted, then slammed into the wall his six-year-old neighbor, Daisy. The boy is larger and stronger that most boys his age, but his I.Q. has been tested at 75, the low range of normal. Chester admitted the conduct but denied culpability and expressed no remorse. He claimed he was emulating what he had seen pro-wrestlers do on television.

The police charged him with juvenile delinquency, conduct which, if committed by an adult, would constitute murder. He was waived to criminal court, convicted and sentenced to death. The jury found as aggravating circumstances the facts that Chester had been in an out of juvenile court since the age of 7 on complaints of assault, robbery and sexual misconduct.

Chester’s attorney has argued: 1) that the case should not have been waived to adult court; 2) that he should not have been found guilty of murder, and 3) that he should not have been sentenced to death.

Discuss these issues with your fellow appellate judges, considering both the law and equity of the case.

ANSWER

Chester’s Case Study

The state finds Chester guilty of murder after head-butting and slamming his six-year-old neighbour, Daisy, to a wall. He is a minor and has a normal IQ (75), which might explain his behaviour. However, he has a history of criminal records, including robbery, sexual misconduct, and complaints of assault.

While Chesters attorney appeals the decision to charge the defendant in an adult court, the court upholds that decision. The state can waive a minor to an adult court if the minor is sixteen years and above. Chester is sixteen-years old and is eligible for the waiver. Also, the state can waiver a case to an adult court if the offender has a long juvenile record, committed a serious offense, and did not benefit from previous rehabilitation behaviour. Chester’s case is a capital offense because it is regarded as a murder charge in an adult court. Owing to the offender’s long criminal record, and repeated offenses after rehabilitation attempts, the state is allowed to waive the case to an adult court. Also, if the state feels that the juvenile court will protect the offender from his crime, it can waive the case to an adult court. Therefore, the verdict to arraign Chester in an adult court is upheld.

While the constitution prohibits the court from sentencing juveniles to death, the eighth amendment does not forbid the court from sentencing 16- and 17-year-olds to death. Similarly, the eighth amendment does not prohibit the court from holding a 16- and 17-year-old culpable of crime due to underdeveloped brains. Also, the IQ score of 75 determines that the offender is mentally sound. Hence, the offender is culpable of the crime he committed. Therefore, Chester’s crime is an offense that equates to murder in an adult court and warrants a death sentence. Also, the court finds the defendant to be mentally sound and culpable of his crime upholds the decisions to charge the defendant with murder, and to sentence him to death.

References

Cafasso, J. (2018, April 11). Average IQ: US, globally, how it’s measured, and controversies. Healthline. Retrieved March 11, 2022, from https://www.healthline.com/health/average-iq

Capital Punishment in Context. (2020). The death penalty for juveniles: Capital punishment in context. The Death Penalty for Juveniles | Capital Punishment in Context. Retrieved March 11, 2022, from https://capitalpunishmentincontext.org/issues/juveniles#:~:text=In%20a%202005%20decision%20called,against%20cruel%20and%20unusual%20punishments.

Kathleen Michon, A. (2016, April 11). When juveniles are tried in adult Criminal Court. www.nolo.com. Retrieved March 11, 2022, from https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/juveniles-youth-adult-criminal-court-32226.html#:~:text=In%20most%20states%2C%20a%20juvenile,of%20crimes%2C%20such%20as%20homicide.