the expense of fact-finding, in order to achieve the goal of "getting the kid off.".
The question is not whether a teenage boy has beaten up a homeless man, shot.
a storekeeper, or sodomized a little girl. He may even admit to the act. The.
question is whether his admission can be invalidated because a police officer.
forgot to have him initial his responses to the Miranda warnings in the proper.
place or whether the arresting officer had probable cause to search him for the.
loaded gun that was found on him (5).
This explains the idea that the focus of these lawyers and judges is now not even on the fact that the crime has been committed, but on finding ways to prevent the youth from being found guilty. An immediate negative consequence of this would be that if the youth is somehow not found guilty, he/she would not be forced into rehabilitation. If the youth criminal is not rehabilitated, they may continue to perform criminal behavior. .
.
Rita Kramer's solid ideas of alternative methods to the current juvenile crime system show me that she has done her research and feels strongly for her position. The last half of her article is devoted entirely to her ideas of what should be done to revise the current system. In paragraph thirteen, she begins her list of revisions with, "the first necessity is legislation to open up juvenile court proceedings to the public and the press" (7). What she is ultimately saying is that authorities can use these records if future arrests take place. Also, protecting the privacy of these youth criminals is far outweighed by the informing of the community around them of what they are and what they are capable of. The list continues with ideas of immediate legal intervention after only the first offense, swift and sure sanctions, and an increased need for structure and supervision (7). By displaying adequate knowledge of the legal system in connection with her own strong ideas of what should be revised, Rita Kramer is able to succeed in convincing me to support her position.
