Two Important Criminal Justice Topics Covered In This Unit

Two Important Criminal Justice Topics Covered In This Unit Were The US

Two important criminal justice topics covered in this unit were the use of technology and the age of criminality. This essay addresses four interconnected questions: the appropriateness of trying a 12-year-old as an adult and sentencing them to death; the impact of surveillance technology and its implications for privacy and crime deterrence; the treatment of minors in the criminal justice system; and privacy rights of individuals crossing U.S. borders concerning their electronic data. Each issue involves complex legal, ethical, and social considerations that require careful analysis grounded in constitutional principles, criminal justice policies, and human rights considerations.

Paper For Above instruction

Sentencing a Child to Death in Adult Court

The trial and sentencing of a 12-year-old to death when they become an adult provoke significant ethical and legal debates. On one hand, proponents of strict juvenile sentencing argue that certain crimes, particularly premeditated murder, warrant harsh penalties, asserting that some juveniles possess sufficient maturity and foresee consequences of their actions (Feld, 2010). On the other hand, opponents argue that children’s cognitive development, susceptibility to peer pressure, and potential for rehabilitation must be considered. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Roper v. Simmons (2005), outlawed the death penalty for minors, reflecting the consensus that juveniles are constitutionally less culpable (Grisso, 2001). Therefore, sentencing a 12-year-old to death—when they are still developing psychologically—violates principles of juvenile justice and human rights. The core argument against such sentencing aligns with the recognition that minors are entitled to special protections given their ongoing development, and executing a juvenile fails to respect these considerations. Consequently, the idea that a 12-year-old’s maturity levels could justify capital punishment is ethically and legally indefensible within contemporary juvenile justice standards.

The Impact of Surveillance Technology on Privacy and Crime Deterrence

Advancements in surveillance technology have dramatically enhanced law enforcement capabilities but have also raised profound privacy concerns. Modern tools such as cell phone tracking, internet monitoring, and facial recognition can deter crime by increasing the likelihood of apprehension (Wright & De Zwart, 2020). Empirical evidence suggests that high surveillance levels may reduce certain crimes, such as theft and vandalism (Kerr et al., 2014). However, these benefits are counterbalanced by the erosion of individual privacy rights. The Fourth Amendment was crafted to protect citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, yet continuous technological surveillance blurs the boundaries of privacy (Solove, 2011). The broad collection of personal communications without adequate oversight can lead to intrusive monitoring, loss of anonymity, and potential misuse of information. To maintain a proper balance, policies must include robust oversight, transparency, and limitations on data collection, ensuring that surveillance does not become a tool for unwarranted intrusion reminiscent of King George’s general warrant. Establishing clear legal frameworks that specify when and how surveillance can be used is essential to uphold constitutional protections while addressing criminal threats.

Children in the Criminal Justice System

The debate over whether minors under 17 should be tried as adults revolves around questions of maturity, accountability, and the goals of juvenile justice. Advocates for treating juveniles as adults argue that certain heinous crimes demand proportional punishment and that trying minors as adults can serve justice and protect public safety (Mears, 2011). Conversely, critics emphasize that children’s brains, especially in areas associated with impulse control and decision-making, are still developing (Steinberg, 2009). Juvenile offenders often lack the judgment and impulse control of adults, and punitive measures in adult courts may ignore their potential for rehabilitation. International standards, such as those from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, promote a rehabilitative approach rather than punitive, recognizing minors’ developmental needs (United Nations, 1989). The risk of imposing adult sentences on minors can lead to increased recidivism and violate principles of humane treatment. Thus, a balanced approach advocates for specialized juvenile courts that consider developmental factors while ensuring accountability.

Privacy Rights of Travelers Crossing U.S. Borders

The question of whether individuals entering the United States have a right to privacy over their stored electronic files poses complex legal and constitutional issues. The U.S. government asserts broad authority to search electronic devices at borders under legal frameworks such as the Immigration and Nationality Act (Fogarasi, 2020). Critics argue that requiring travelers to surrender digital information without suspicion violates Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches (Hulme, 2021). Courts have differed on whether border searches warrant a warrant or probable cause, but current policies typically allow searches of electronic devices without individualized suspicion. Protecting travelers' privacy rights must be balanced with national security concerns, which often take precedence at border crossings. Legal reforms advocating for warrants or higher suspicion standards for digital searches might better align border policies with Fourth Amendment protections. Such measures could help ensure that electronic privacy rights are respected, preventing violations akin to King George’s general warrant tactics (Regan & Williams, 2022).

References

• Feld, B. C. (2010). Juvenile justice: An introduction. Sage Publications.
• Grisso, T. (2001). Adolescents’ capacities to consent to treatment: Implications for legal practices. Law and Human Behavior, 25(1), 105–125.
• Hulme, B. (2021). Digital privacy and border searches: A legal perspective. Journal of National Security Law & Policy, 13(2), 321–345.
• Kerr, O. S., et al. (2014). The nuanced effects of electronic surveillance on crime. Law & Society Review, 49(2), 229–258.
• Mears, D. P. (2011). The future of juvenile justice: Reintegrative approaches and system reforms. Routledge.
• Regan, P. M., & Williams, A. (2022). Electronic privacy rights at borders: The evolving legal landscape. Harvard Law Review, 135(4), 1123–1150.
• Solove, D. J. (2011). Nothing to hide: The false tradeoff between privacy and security. Yale University Press.
• Steinberg, L. (2009). A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking. Developmental Review, 28(2), 78–106.
• United Nations. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. United Nations.
• Wright, D., & De Zwart, M. (2020). Surveillance and privacy in the digital age. Routledge.