Fascinating facts
The case of In re Winship illustrates the ambiguous and central issue of whether “due process” and equitable treatment (the Fourteenth Amendment) include evidence beyond reasonable doubt. This is a requirement in the arbitration stage of juvenile criminal prosecutions, where the defendant is accused for an act which would make him a felon if he was an adult. Brown, 2017, was the boy who brought this case before New York Family Court. According to the court, the defendant stole $112 from the purse of a woman. The judge presiding over the case stated that he primarily analyzed evidence according to New York law. According to the judge’s decision, the juvenile was placed in a six-year training center. New York Court of Appeals affirmed the decision on grounds of constitutional language and need for a separate judicial process for juvenile offenders.
Problem
The case brings up the question of whether juvenile offenders should have the same constitutional rights as adults. For example, “evidence beyond reasonable doubt” (Legal Information Institute 2021). Innocent children should be given the same consideration as adults when questioning them about their guilt.
The choice or position
Because of the logic of Constitutionality upon which the arguments are based, the New York Court of Appeals’ argumentation is not convincing. Brown, 2017. The court held that delinquency convictions are not criminal convictions. They can therefore not affect defendants’ rights or privileges. Because the court has found that being delinquent does not constitute a crime so the proceedings can not be conducted in criminal litigation, appellant cannot have been denied due process rights.
Argumentation from the law
• The application of “proof beyond reasonable doubt” is crucial in criminal proceedings because the accused may lose their freedom and become stigmatized if convicted. • The statutory provision of “due process” ensures the accused does not lose his freedom except when the government has borne the burden of investigating his guilt.
• The Court of Appeals ruled that arbitration of delinquency is not a “sentence,” so it cannot affect the child’s rights and privileges, such as the right to be in power and hold a public office. • Since delinquency is not considered a crime, the litigation process is not criminal, so it cannot be argued that a teen was denied due process.
There are divergent opinions
The majority was voted for by Thurgood Marshall, William Brennan and William Douglas Justices. Justice Harlan voted in favor of the concurring judgement, while Justices Black Burger, Stewart, and Stewart voted against (Brown 2017).
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
