Case Study Analysis

Case Study Analysis

The juvenile justice structure has been incorporated to safeguard adolescents that enter the criminal justice system. A significant aspect attributed to the structure is rehabilitating the felonious individuals to integrate them back into the community successfully. Numerous persons play a significant role in safeguarding the best interests of delinquent teenagers. They attempt to guarantee rehabilitation of juveniles and averting punishments for crimes perpetrated.

Preparation of a Case

As a magistrate involved in the suit, understanding the case facts and every component revolving around the criminal act is fundamental. It is important to review information regarding crime severity, gender, social history, and prior records. Additionally, evaluating the role played by every offender, in the act of assault as well as if the juvenile displays any remorsefulness. All the elements should be considered as each state has convicting laws to be adhered to to guarantee fairness and consistency within the system. The factors may determine if remanding the teenager is remanded in a rehabilitation institution (Michon, 2018). They also determine if the delinquent person remains in the parents’ custody, while also considering probation and public service.

Considering Diane and Jack’s ages, the case trial will be conducted as a juvenile suit.  Since they are juveniles at the age of 13, they may not be arrested as grownups; however, they will be detained. In this case, bail is not set for both the accused, while the juvenile justice system process is considered to be fast as compared to the criminal justice framework. Another aspect that guarantees they are considered juvenile delinquents is a provision within a Juvenile act that states they may not be detained for more than 24hrs. The local police department should file a juvenile petition and presented it to the courts for a scheduled hearing.  Minors indicted for violation of a criminal statute are said to have executed a criminal action in contrast with being indicted with a delinquency. “If the allegations are substantiated, and a felony verdict is pronounced, Jack and Diane will be under the law court’s far-reaching authorities” (Merlo Benekos & Champion, 2016). In this case, the juvenile law court has the power to execute what it contemplates to be in the adolescent’s paramount interests.

It is fundamental to accord different treatment to juveniles in contrast with the adults. This is due to juveniles not being regarded as grown-ups and may not be responsible for their deeds. Teenagers are unwary and, at times, immature in the decision-making process. Thus, it is essential to note that there is a lower likelihood that adolescents may think before misinterpreting the common indications. In history, juvenile offenders were not accorded any protection or rights. In the People, v Turner lawsuit, the juvenile involved in the case was essentially being sentenced and not rehabilitated. Parens patiae doctrine was rejected and concluded that juvenile felony offenders should be imprisoned (People v. Turner, 2018). The pronouncement marked the beginning of reforms within the system, and the arguments on juvenile rights have therefore evolved. The evolvement of juveniles’ due process rights has also been witnessed. Both individuals have the entitlement to notice of charges, entitled to an attorney, and the justification to affirm their 5th Amendment right against self-implication.

There are specific likely court-ordered options for both minors. In Jack’s cases, his possibilities are quite austere as he fails to acknowledge the wrongful act as he assaulted the store’s owner by pushing him to the ground. This would necessitate various consequences, such as staying at a juvenile detention center or house arrest. This would show Jack that liberty is a benefit and that this may be ceased if he fails to change. In Diane’s case, her options may involve community service or counseling, as she acknowledged her wrongful deeds. Counseling would be the better option because of reacting to pressure and did things she might not have otherwise done.

Jack’s Case

His due process and constitutional privileges were defied during the course of investigations. This is because he was not apprehended stealing from the store. This can be deemed as no probable cause for the officer to search. Nonetheless, he pushed the store’s proprietor, signifying a simple assault case. The second violation involved the failure to advise jack on his Miranda rights. This is after he was apprehended and cross-examined for two hours. Before the questioning, a Miranda caution may have been dispensed in a viable language. Jack disowned any wrongful acts all through the cross-examination despite his colleague acknowledging the theft.

Regarding the enquiry process, the due procedure and constitutional privileges were not defied. His inquiry was programmed within the state-mandated duration after he had been requested to turn up.  Jack was offered with notice of indictments though devoid of significant proof, retrieval of stolen possessions, the apprehension would not have incorporated the stealing allegation.  Although the situation does not stipulate, Jack may have had the right to question the owner.

Being Jack’s Attorney, I would state that there was no substantial proof of Jack’s conviction. This is because no stolen item was recovered and no presence of a witness apart from the colleague apprehended in possession of 2 boxes of candy. In the case of pushing the store owner, it would be better to state that the owner was accidentally knocked down while exiting the premises and the aim of assault.

If I were the public prosecutor, I may acknowledge that Jack was the theft mastermind because he requested Diane to meet him at the store to steal. I would also state Jack’s contempt for other individuals as he regularly denies the wrongful acts. This is because Diane confessed to committing the acts. The second aspect would be Jack’s disregard for authority by shoving the store owner to the ground. Moreover, if no offense was committed then, Jack would not have pushed the store owner.

If his case had been handled in a federal court, the procedure would have varied as there would be no judgment but a formal trial.  The magistrate will concentrate on punishment compared to societal reintegration if the juvenile trial is conducted in an adult law court. The judge would then decide how and the location for the detention of the juvenile. Once a delinquent faces trial in an adult, their cases would always be determined in adult law courts. This would mean that there would be no expungement of accounts, resulting in multiple interruptions in an adolescent’s life.

The suitable court-ordered selection for Jack would be communal services and counseling. Foremost, the communal would restrict various activities and will make him give back to society. On the other hand, counseling will assist him in always acknowledging his actions.

Diane’s Case

Regarding the due processes and constitutional privileges, there were various violations during the course of investigation. Although there was suspicion for police to search Diane as store owner reported allegedly seeing Diane place candy in her bag. The desecration of failing to inform Diane on her Miranda rights is considered a significant violation. Before the interrogation began, the Miranda notice ought to have been issued in age proper language. Diane would then have the ability to request for her parents and have a lawyer presented before her interrogation.

It is unclear that the due processes and statutory privileges were disrupted during the course of inquiry.  Her trial was programmed within the preferred duration. The notice of charges was also presented to Diane’s counsel. However, the state of affairs does not stipulate her rights to interrogate any witnesses involved. Additionally, Diane may have the privileges to ensure the theft accusations confirmed beyond reasonable suspicion.

If I were in Diane’s attorney, I might have called for the dismissal of the case as her rights were desecrated during the investigation process.  My first argument would be being combed devoid of a probable cause. The next reason is being arrested, incarcerated, and questioned by police in the absence of a lawyer (Keefer, 2017). She was also pressured during cross-examination to acknowledge the shoplifting.  Reasons for arguing on this basis is because every process in the court case builds on another if the preliminary intake was inconsistent. The basis for evidence being acceptable during her inquiry shall be insignificant and annulled.

While acting as a prosecutor, I would maintain that Diane willingly proceeded with Jack’s appeal, while clearly understanding that obtaining unauthorized property was inappropriate.  I would have the store owner give evidence that he saw Diane place the boxes of candy.  I may also have requested the police officer to affirm that he repossessed the stolen items from her purse. This alone is evidence beyond sound doubt that she took possession of unauthorized items. I continually restate that the juvenile justice system’s resolve is holding youth responsible for their deeds and developing youth competency.

Since Diane’s case was petty candy theft, it should not be conducted in federal court. The act of delinquency was minor, and the juvenile court’s focus is on rehabilitation instead of punishments. Nonetheless, if the suit were to be determined in the federal system, a formal hearing would have taken place. Due to the case circumstances, it may be extremely improbable that the lawsuit would be conducted in a federal system.

In this case, a suitable court-ordered selection from the defence and prosecution viewpoint would be placing her on probation with communal service. She does not harm the owner, and she was apologetic for her deeds and acknowledged the part played in stealing. Integrating her into a confinement facility may not be a viable sequence of action. Defense lawyers may argue that her intentions were not stealing and was not aware of the plans. She only placed the items out of her friend’s request.



Keefer, A. (2017). Can a Cop Talk to a Minor Without a Parent? Retrieved from:

Merlo, A. V., Benekos, P. J., & Champion, D. J. (2016). The Juvenile Justice System Delinquency, Processing, And The Law (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Michon, K. (2018). Juvenile Delinquency: What Happens in a Juvenile Case? Retrieved from:

People v. Turner. (2018) Retrieved May 8, 2018, from



Calculate your order
Pages (275 words)
Standard price: $0.00
Open chat
Hello 👋
Thank you for choosing our assignment help service!
How can I help you?