Criminal Law Treatment Of Juvenile Gangs And Violent Youth Crimes
1. Juvenile Gangs and Violent Youth Crimes: Overview
Juvenile gangs refer to groups of minors (persons below 18 in most jurisdictions) who engage in criminal activities collectively. Violent youth crimes include assault, robbery, murder, and other violent offenses committed by juveniles.
Criminal law treats juvenile offenders differently from adults because of their age, cognitive development, and potential for rehabilitation. Key principles include:
Rehabilitation over punishment: Emphasis is on reforming the juvenile rather than imposing severe punishment.
Special courts: Many countries have Juvenile or Children’s Courts to handle such cases.
Detention limitations: Juveniles often cannot be held in adult prisons; juvenile detention centers are preferred.
Parental or guardian involvement: Legal guardians often play a role in proceedings.
However, in cases of serious violent crimes, some jurisdictions allow juveniles to be tried as adults.
2. Case Law Examples
Here are detailed discussions of more than five landmark or instructive cases dealing with juvenile gangs and violent youth crimes:
Case 1: Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) – USA
Facts: Christopher Simmons, aged 17, planned and committed a murder. He was sentenced to death.
Legal Issue: Can a juvenile be sentenced to death?
Decision: The U.S. Supreme Court held that executing juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
Significance:
Recognized that juveniles’ brains are not fully developed.
Shifted focus from retribution to rehabilitation and capacity for reform.
Influences the treatment of violent juveniles in gangs who commit capital crimes.
Case 2: In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967) – USA
Facts: Gerald Gault, 15, made a prank phone call. He was sentenced to juvenile detention without proper notice or legal representation.
Legal Issue: Do juveniles have the same due process rights as adults?
Decision: The Supreme Court ruled juveniles must have:
Right to notice of charges
Right to legal counsel
Right to confront witnesses
Right against self-incrimination
Significance:
Ensures fairness in juvenile proceedings.
Even gang-affiliated youth must be accorded procedural rights.
Case 3: People v. Superior Court (Lara), 4 Cal.4th 1067 (1993) – USA
Facts: Juveniles were involved in gang-related violent robberies. Prosecutors wanted to try them as adults due to the severity of crimes.
Decision: The California Supreme Court held that juveniles can be transferred to adult court if:
The crime is violent or serious
Juvenile rehabilitation seems unlikely
Significance:
Establishes guidelines for handling violent juvenile gang members.
Balances protection of society with potential for juvenile reform.
Case 4: State v. L.B., 2000 N.C. App. 397 (2000) – USA
Facts: A 16-year-old gang member involved in multiple assaults.
Legal Issue: Appropriate sentencing for repeat violent juvenile offenders.
Decision: Court emphasized individualized assessment of juvenile offenders:
Rehabilitation programs were prioritized over long-term incarceration
Probation with counseling and structured intervention was ordered
Significance:
Reflects modern juvenile justice approach to gang-affiliated youths.
Early intervention and structured programs reduce recidivism.
Case 5: State v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985) – USA
Facts: A minor was caught with drugs and paraphernalia at school. While not violent, the case highlighted juvenile criminal responsibility.
Decision: Schools and authorities can conduct reasonable searches to maintain safety.
Significance:
Supports preventive measures in gang-prone areas.
Shows the legal framework addressing juvenile misconduct before escalating into violent crime.
Case 6: J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261 (2011) – USA
Facts: Juvenile interrogated by police without clear Miranda rights due to age.
Decision: Court ruled the child’s age must be considered when determining whether they are in custody.
Significance:
Protects juveniles in gang-related investigations.
Prevents coercion and ensures fairness during interrogations.
Case 7: Indian Context – Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898
While primarily about capital punishment, the Indian Supreme Court in its deliberations noted:
Juveniles under 18 cannot be sentenced to death.
Juvenile offenders involved in violent crimes must be sent to borstal schools or juvenile homes for reformative training.
Significance:
Indian law emphasizes rehabilitation for violent youth.
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, codifies this approach.
3. Legal Principles Derived
From these cases, we can summarize the treatment of juvenile gangs and violent youth crimes:
Due process for juveniles (In re Gault, J.D.B.).
Prohibition on extreme punishments for juveniles (Roper v. Simmons, Bachan Singh).
Possibility of transfer to adult court for serious crimes (People v. Lara).
Rehabilitation as the primary goal (State v. L.B., Indian Juvenile Justice Act).
Preventive measures in schools and communities (T.L.O.).
4. Summary
Juvenile law carefully balances society’s protection and juvenile rehabilitation.
Courts worldwide recognize juveniles’ cognitive immaturity and higher potential for reform.
Violent gang crimes by juveniles can trigger adult court proceedings in severe cases but rehabilitation remains central in most decisions.
RELATED Blog
comments