Articles
Juvenile Law
In the past, it was felt that children under the age of seven were mentally, and therefore legally, incapable of committing a crime. Children between the ages of seven and fourteen were presumed to be incapable of committing a crime, but if it could be proven that they knew the difference between right and wrong, they could be convicted of any adult crime. If they were convicted, they received adult penalties, even death. Views about children's criminality began to change in the 1800s and reformers emphasized the need to separate children from adult criminals by building separate children's houses of refuge. These facilities stressed education in moral and religious values as well as vocational skills consistent with their philosophy that children who committed crimes needed to be guided to develop into law-abiding citizens rather than be punished. Children were placed in these facilities, often after very informal procedures, and often for "non-crimes" such as running away from home, skipping school or disobeying their parents.
More...
What does it mean to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt?"
The prosecutor must convince the judge or jury hearing the case that the defendant is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." This standard is very hard to meet. (By contrast, in non-criminal cases, such as an accident or breach of contract, a plaintiff has to prove her case only by a preponderance of the evidence -- just over 50%.) As a practical matter, the high burden of proof in criminal cases means that judges and jurors are supposed to resolve all doubts about the meaning of the evidence in favor of the defendant. With such a high standard imposed on the prosecutor, a defendant's most common defense is often to argue that there is reasonable doubt-that is, that the prosecutor hasn't done a sufficient job of proving that the defendant is guilty.
More...
|
