Arguments for and Against Juvenile Courts

Arguments for and Against Juvenile Courts Introduction In the United States we have two parallel systems that deal with individuals that commit crimes and or offenses against society. First we have the criminal justice system, a court which deals with adults who commit various crimes. Secondly, we have the juvenile justice system, a court designed especially for minors and is generally thought to help rehabilitate the offender. The salient difference between these two systems, as Mitcheal Ritter puts it, â€Å"is the use of distinct terminology to refer to their similar procedures. State and federal legislatures intended this terminological variation to avoid stigmatizing children as â€Å"criminals† and to dissociate the juvenile system from the criminal justice system† (Ritter 2010, 222). The major issue I intend to look at it is whether or not we should abolish the juvenile justice system. First, we will look at the position of keeping the current system, why it needs to stay in place, and why in the long r un it is the most beneficial to the juvenile. Second, we will examine the research of Barry Feld, one of the most influential advocates on why it needs to be abolished because of the lack of constitutional rights that a juvenile does not receive while being tried under the Juvenile justice system. Thirdly, I will be looking at each party’s positions and critiquing it to see it what the strong and weak points are. Finally, I will present my own opinion on whether to keep it, abolish it, or create a whole new system altogether. Presentation of Position A: Do Not Abolish the Juvenile System To try a juvenile in adult court is by no means the right decision. In this section we will look at evidence and arguments on why the juvenile justice system should not be abolished. Juveniles are different from adults and therefore should not be allowed to stand trial in the criminal justice system. Children are not well enough developed mentally, as compared to an adult, to be tried in the adult correctional system. This is why many people take the stance, â€Å"no way should we get rid of the juvenile justice system.† The â€Å"director of the state’s (Washington) Bureau of Juvenile Detention Services is seeking to keep 16- and 17-year-old offenders out of the state’s criminal justice system† (McNeil 2008). To lock up a child in an adult correction facility is by no means the right idea even if they are â€Å"separate† from the adults. If a juvenile commits an â€Å"adult crime† like robbery, theft or in most cases drug crimes, a quick fix is to incarcerate that individual in an adult prison to punish him and protect society. While this may work for adults, it is inappropriate for a youth. Advocates argue that we must keep the juvenile justice system because â€Å"many studies also have found that significantly harsher punishments are meted out to juveniles in adult court when compared with juveniles in juvenile court, parti cularly for serious or violent offenses† (Kurlycheck and Johnson 2010, 727). Sending a juvenile to adult court at such a young age can be problematic for the child, because the court wants to be strict with the child by showing them that their behavior will not be tolerated and because in adult court the child will miss out on educational and rehabilitative programs more readily available in juvenile detention facilities. Kurlycheck and Johnson argue that â€Å"Juvenile courts are characterized by disposition options that fundamentally differ from adult courts in their symbolic meaning, punitive and treatment alternatives, and punishment goals† (2010). In a study in Pennsylvania, Kurlycheck and Johnson compared a sample of juveniles tried in juvenile court with juveniles who were transferred to adult court and showed that the adult courts were harsher on the juvenile: â€Å"On average, their sentences were 80 percent more severe than for their young adult counterpartsà ¢â‚¬  (Kurlycheck and Johnson 2010, 729).

Gun Control Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words - 2

Gun Control - Essay Example This essay will specifically address the reasons for allowing personal gun ownership and usage. The federal government should not restrict American people from carrying guns because guns do not kill people but people kill people. Hence, by restricting gun ownership we do not create a safer society since the safety of the society relies on our morals and not firearms. Additionally, according to the second Amendment to the U.S Constitution, it is a legitimate right for an American citizen to own a gun for security reasons and protection of his property (Endersby Web). In situations where the police are incapable of protecting the citizens like where thugs break into houses in the wee hours of the night, a personal gun would offer a reprieve. In fact, banning guns would not eliminate them from the society since most of the guns are illegal secret imports that are never registered. Hence, banning gun ownership will only accord criminal a chance to own illegal guns and deny law-abiding citizens weapons to protect themselves from the criminals. Moreover, shooting is a sport recogniz ed by the federal government and relies on gun ownership. Hence, banning ownership of guns would deprive the sportsmen of their leisure, kill the sport and the economic benefits attached to it. Actually, a country can effectively fight external aggression if most of its citizens have an ability to use guns. Banning personal gun ownership denies this ability. Indeed, the federal government recognizes the significance of a well-regulated militia in the second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Many countries rely on this militia to defend themselves. In probable cases of rape and other crimes, women will have no means to protect themselves when the rapists strike. Ideally, the possibility of a victim to possess a firearm prevents a crime. Socially, the banning of gun ownership will lead to black markets for guns and subsequent criminal revenue as people seek for

Certainty of Terms in Lease Contract Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3250 words

Certainty of Terms in Lease Contract - Essay Example A leasehold estate is made for a year or a fraction of a year or for many numbers of years or for weekly, quarterly, monthly or per annum basis. On 3 December 1868, the longest lease was created by an Irish lease thereby granting for a term of ten million years as regards to a plot for a sewerage tank. In Smallwood v Sheppards2, a privilege to occupy a cottage for three following bank holidays held to be a valid lease. In Cottage Holidays Associates v Customs and Excise Commissioners3, it was upheld that a right to occupy a resort cottage for seven days in each year for a period of 80 years as a valid lease4. Privileges and commitments under a lease contract will be established by the general law provision and by the terms contained in the lease contract, like payment of rent by a tenant, repair and renovate the leased property, to use only for the authorised usage, not to sublet or to assign, to make a charge or part with the possession of the land without prior consent from the lan dlord5. This research essay will make an earnest attempt to elaborate the main ingredients for the award of a valid lease and the possible outcomes of failing to observe with those ingredients with reference to relevant case law and academic commentary. â€Å"Requirement of a Valid Lease† For creating a lease contract, there should be a landlord who owns or legally possess the ownership of a land, a tenant who will have the privilege to exclusively possess the land for a definite or contracted period by paying a rent, where the landlord retains a reversionary interest. There should be two parties one –the landlord and the other, the tenant. The landlord cannot give a lease of land to himself as held in Rye v Rye6. In Ingram v Inland Revenue Commissioners7, it was held that a nominee cannot award a lease to his principal. However, s72 (4) of LPA 1925 offers some statutory exception to this8. The subject matter should be a land in a leasing contract as per s205 (1) (ix) of LPA 1925, which includes any land, building on land and rights over such land, which is known as ‘incorporeal hereditaments.’ The landlord must divest himself of everything which he possesses in his leasehold estate. In Milmo V Carreras9, a tenant had sublet a flat to a party which ran beyond the head lease period. It was viewed by the Court of Appeal that tenant had transferred to the sublease the whole of the period available under the head lease and as such, he had not retained any reversion over it. â€Å"Certainty of Terms† The duration or term of a lease contract should be certain.