Juvenile Delinquency

The Fare v. Michael C. (1979) case involved the murder of Robert Yeager by the accused Michael C. The accused was being convicted on the basis of having been seen at the residence of the accused before the murder of the accused. His mother’s car had also been seen on the venue. On the basis of this information, the accused was taken to the Van Nuys Police and questioning was initiated. Before the questioning was initiated, the accused was informed about his Miranda Rights.

Upon being informed about his rights, he was asked if he would forego his rights to stay silent and to speak with them in the absence of an attorney. The accused confirmed that he would talk to them but requested them to invite his probation officer. The officers questioning him declined him this request and he accepted to proceed with the questioning. In the process of the questioning that later occurred, he provided information and even made sketches that implicated him in the killing.

Largely on the basis of the information provided by the accused during the questioning, the probation authorities pressed charges against Michael C. in the juvenile Court. The respondent then suppressed the incriminating evidence he had provided saying that the information had been obtained in violation of Miranda and that his request for his probation officer comprised an invocation of his Fifth Amendment. He further argued since questioning did not end until he had access to his probation officer, this information could not be used against him in a court of law. In this regard, the accused relied on the analogy that a minor’s request for his parents during interrogation comprised of an invocation of hid Fifth Amendment rights.

In the ruling, the court determined that the accused had waived his right to stay silent when he had offered to communicate even in the absence of the probation officer. The respondent took the case to the Court of Appeal where it the ruling was reversed. According to the Court of Appeal, the accused depended on his probation officer for advice and depended on the probation officer as a trusted guardian.

I feel the ruling in this case was not in violation of the law. The accused and his probation officer had a close relationship and he would have served as a guardian to the accused. The fact that he had used his assistance previously while dealing with the police further cements this ruling.

In the California v. Prysock (1981) case respondent and a codefendant were apprehended for the murder of Mrs. Donna Iris Erickson. During questioning, the accused was informed about his Miranda Rights and refused to respond to the questioning. It was then determined that the parents should be called since the defendant was a minor. On talking with the parents, the respondent accepted to talk to the police even in the absence of an attorney. He was informed that he had a right to stay silent and a right to a lawyer who would be obtained without any costs to himself. Later, the respondent incriminated himself during questioning and was this information was used against him in the Superior Court.

In this case, the accused contested the validity of the statements given him before the questioning. His contest failed and was convicted by a jury of first degree murder. Later in the court of appeal, the court determined that the evidence presented was lacking and ordered a retrial. In this case, the court argued that the accused should have been advised on his option to get access to a lawyer without further questioning.

I feel this case was justly resolved. Failure by an officer to inform one of their rights could be abused if not properly monitored. The ruling then calls for caution when informing individuals of their rights.

Community policing is useful in juvenile justice for various reasons

1. Direct involvement of the police in a community informs the police about the mostly immediate problems to grant them priority
2. Removing police officers from matters of emergency response puts them in a position to be more proactive in crime prevention (Siegel & Welsh, 2014)
3. Increases the visibility of police operations hence increasing their accountability
4. The needs of the community are better met by the decentralization of operations and adapts the operations of the police to meet those needs
5. The teamwork between the police and the community enables the community and the police to view each other as partners.
6. Community policing places responsibility in the hands of the people who are better informed about the needs of the community (Siegel & Welsh, 2014)

In regard to juvenile justice, I think it is important for community policing to be established in order to fight crime. A community that is more informed about the issues of the community is better placed to serve them.

•  

References

Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 99 S. Ct. 2560, 61 L. Ed. 2d 197 (1979).

California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355, 101 S. Ct. 2806, 69 L. Ed. 2d 696 (1981).

Siegel, L., & Welsh, B. (2014). Juvenile delinquency: Theory, practice, and law. Cengage Learning.