Charting the Change in Juveniles' Legal Rights
Every one deserves to be fairly treated by the judicial systems of the United States of America under the constitution regardless of their age. This comes in line with many reports indicating that the rights of minors or juvenile offenders are often violated by the judicial system. The first area where the Supreme Court has not done enough is the protection of students against free speech in high schools. It has created a lot of confusion to lower courts on deciding what constitutes right and wrong expression at school (Siegel & Welsh, 2008). Like for instance courts have allowed schools to punish students who put T-shirts with some writings like “Drugs Suck” for they think is oral sex. The Supreme Court should therefore come out clearly and protect students against such unlawful acts. Another area where the Supreme Court has failed juveniles is enforcing their executions. A total of 31 sates and federal law today has prohibited executions of offenders who have not attained their 18th birthday; this is because the act is cruel and unusual in the constitution.
Ventrell (2003) asserts that the presence of attorney in the intake proceedings helps the juvenile intake procedures because it has greatly improved the performance and timing of the court. Research reveal that most court judges are today having adjuratory hearing within sixty days after the juvenile has been taken away from home in comparison to earlier own when it could encountered a lot of delays. Dispositional hearing timings have also immensely improved due to attorney’s presence. In general, it can be affirmed that attorneys have helped change to better the manner in which juvenile intake used to be handle.
The wide powers vested in the intake personnel in deciding the outcome of the juvenile referral has to be reduced. This is because some of these personnel like the police exercise this duty discriminatively and therefore they do not need to be totally in charge of the process (Ventrell, 2003).