As I have endured the Juvenile Justice course I have found some remarkable Supreme Court cases that in an essence changed the way juveniles are prosecuted today. The first case I will discuss is the Roper v. Simmon case in 1993 and the sentencing change in 2004. The second case is Yarborough v. Alvarado in 2004. I will discuss criminal justice theories that may help explain the crime. The juvenile courts and juvenile corrections prosecution and punishment of minor persons accused in each case. Also, the victims’ family’s reaction to the legislations decision to change the law in each case. This discussion should illustrate a clear picture of the importance each case played in the juvenile justice system.
The Roper v. Simmons case starting …show more content…
Alvarado in 2004, regarding juveniles being read their Miranda rights. The case started when Michael Alvarado was 17 years old, brought in for questioning to a police station regarding a mall truck robbery and murder. Alvarado complied with the request and went down to the police station with his parents. After 2 hours in an interrogation room with Detective Comstock, Alvarado was confessing to his involvement in the crime after changing his story from never being involved in the first place (JUSTIA US Supreme Court, 2004). The reason for his confession was the Detective Comstock assured Alvarado that there was proof of his involvement and witnesses placing him at the scene of the crime (JUSTIA US Supreme Court, 2004). At this point Alvarado explained that him and his friend Paul Soto decided to rob a truck. Alvarado claimed to be on the passenger’s side of the vehicle and Soto on the driver’s side intimidating the victim for his keys and wallet, with a gun. Alvarado claimed to have had prior knowledge of Soto carrying the gun however it was for intimidation and not meant to kill the driver. After the victim was shot the boys stole the victims truck and hid the gun together. Before and after the interrogation detective Comstock never read Alvarado his Miranda Rights. After Alvarado left the police station with his parents shortly after Soto and Alvarado were brought up on charges of murder and attempted robbery (JUSTIA US Supreme Court, 2004). …show more content…
Such as the Routine Activity Theory which is defined as “crime being a conscious choice when these factors are present availability of a suitable target, absence of a capable guardian, and lastly the presence of a motivated offender” (Hess, K. M., 2013, ch.3). Both cases the targets were available with a known guardian or even individual to help the victim. The presence of a motivated offender was extreme in the case Roper v. Simmons, the offender was so motivated that he planned out the attack. The second case of Yarborough v. Alvarado, the offenders were motivated by the rush in stealing a vehicle and someone’s money. However, in their case it didn’t work out quite according to their plan. Both crimes were crimes of opportunity and each exploited that in their crimes. In these cases, there was not a presence of legislation going after one group or others. In both the cases legislation corrected the laws according to society evolving and it’s great that our laws do the