Posts tagged "juvenile crime"

A study published this month in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine found that one in four teens admitted to sending sexually-explicit text messages, or "sexts." The researchers were curious as to whether the practice of sending a sext could give clues to teens' overall sexual behavior.

The researchers asked teens if they had sent a sext, asked another teen to send a sext, or had refused to send a sext, and whether those choices related to other sexual choices, such as whether the teens were sexually active or not. 

The study authors found that the sexting behavior of teens can indeed be indicative of their physical sexual behavior. The researchers did not say whether this was a bad thing, however, because they didn't know whether the sexting actually led to the sexual behavior or vice versa. The researchers said that sexting wasn't necessarily harmful, unless it was specifically used to harass or bully. In California, teens who send sexts can be expelled from school.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled at the end of June that it was unconstitutional to impose mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole on juveniles convicted of murder. The justices said that mandatory life sentences are cruel and unusual punishment because they do not take into account extenuating circumstances around the crime or give the juvenile the chance to reform.

Children and teens are different than adults because their brains are still developing. The ruling by the Supreme Court does not say that judges cannot impose life sentences without parole on juveniles, but that these sentences cannot be mandatory. A judge can use his or her discretion in sentencing the juvenile following a murder conviction. Factors that could be taken into account include the juvenile's home environment and the possibility for rehabilitation.

A California dad was recently in the national news talking about criminal charges and fines he is facing because of underage drinking that went on in his house while he was home. The Stanford professor said that he prohibited drinking at the party and checked on the party in the basement twice to make sure there was no alcohol involved.

A call to police tipping them off that underage drinking may be occurring at the party sent law enforcement to the home where they indeed found alcohol being consumed by minors. Under social host laws, the dad was responsible for the drinking of the minors and had to spend a night in jail. He also is facing 44 counts of suspicion of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Each count carries up to a year in jail and up to a $2,500 fine.

A study of the years between 1997 and 2008 recently published in Pediatrics revealed that an increasing number of young people are being arrested.

The survey did not distinguish whether the arrests were for nonviolent or violent crimes, but it found that between 25 and 41 percent of the young people who responded to the national survey had been arrested before the age of 23. Between 16 and 27 percent of the young people who responded to the survey had been arrested before the age of 18.

The fact that so many young people are being arrested early in life could point to other problems that are not being addressed, such as getting young people with mental and emotional problems the help they need. According to ABC News, between 50 and 75 percent of young people who are incarcerated are suffering from undiagnosed and untreated mental health conditions.

A new survey released yesterday by the National Institutes of Health revealed that 1 in 9 high school seniors admitted last spring to trying synthetic marijuana sometime during the previous year.

The study further demonstrates that the popularity of synthetic drugs is on the rise even as California lawmakers and the federal government are taking steps to crack down on the manufacture and sale of the drugs.

Synthetic drugs such as synthetic pot (which is sold as "incense") and synthetic cocaine (which is sold as "bath salts") have become increasingly common as a "legal" drug that won't show up on drug tests, but the products can have dangerous side effects.

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to decide whether the constitutional rights of two teens were violated when they were sent to prison without the possibility of parole after being convicted of murder. The Supreme Court consolidated two separate cases that involved the same question of constitutionality and heard the arguments for the cases earlier this month.

At issue is whether is cruel and unusual punishment to send juvenile offenders to prison for life without the possibility of parole. This sentence does not leave room for rehabilitation as the teen ages and matures in a correctional facility. The justices will decide whether it violated the juvenile offenders' rights to not have the chance or possibility for rehabilitation, and whether this should be a key component to be kept in mind when sentencing minors for violent and other crimes.

The defendants were both 14 at the time of their crimes and both note in their cases that only 73 people are currently serving life sentences for crimes committed at that age.

In an effort to minimize the harshness of penalties imposed on juveniles, the Supreme Court of the United States prohibited the death penalty for juveniles back in 2005. In 2010, the Supreme Court also ruled that juveniles could only spend life in prison without parole for crimes that involve murder. 

The U.S. stands alone in locking away teenagers for life without parole. Currently, there are 2,500 teenagers looking at spending the rest of their lives behind bars in the U.S. 

Most casual television viewers will be familiar with the Miranda warning. The Miranda warning is a warning that police officers must give a suspect when that suspect is taken into custody. The Supreme Court is now in the process of deciding a case that will define the scope of the Miranda rule in California and across the country.

Last month, the Supreme Court heard arguments in an important case that centers on whether a child suspected of robbery was in custody during a 2005 interrogation. The child was not questioned in a police station. Rather, he was questioned at the school he attended as a special needs student. If the student was in custody at the time of the interrogation, he should have been informed of his Miranda rights, which would have informed him of the option to refrain from answering questions.