Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Winship was decided by the Burger Court in 1970, Docket number 778. The case involves a twelve-year-old boy, Samuel Winship, who was arrested for stealing $112 from a woman's locker. Section 744(b) of the New York Family Court Act provided that determination of a juvenile's guilt differs from an adult defendant, requiring only a "preponderance of evidence" and not evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt." Based on the "preponderance of evidence" clause, the Family Court initially found Winship guilty, "despite acknowledging that the evidence did not establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt," ("In Re Winship"). Winship appealed, and the appeal was rejected and later sent to the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari and deemed "preponderance of evidence" methods unconstitutional based primarily on the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause.
The outcome of the case strengthens the burden of proof requirements for all criminal cases, juvenile or not. However, juvenile defendants are particularly influenced by this decision. The decision particularly applies to acts that would be considered crimes if the defendant were an adult. Although juveniles are the principle recipients of the outcome, In Re Winship generally strengthens the concept of burden of proof, and upholds the inherent values in both the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard as well as the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees to due process. The decision ultimately centers on the "reasonable doubt standard" as being "indispensible to command the respect and confidence of the community in applications of the criminal law," ("In Re Winship").
The Supreme Court decision underscores the unnecessary nebulous nature of the "preponderance of evidence" clause that had tainted the original Family Court case, noting that such "abstract weighing of the evidence" is "susceptible to misinterpretation," ("In Re Winship"). The justices also write that the "reasonable doubt" standard "plays a vital role in the American scheme of criminal procedure. It is a prime instrument for reducing the risk of convictions resting on factual error," ("In Re Winship"). Given that juveniles are frequently tried for acts that would be considered crimes, and that those acts might warrant trial as adult and resulting in incarceration, the enforcement of due process and the upholding of burden of proof standards are critical.
References
"In Re Winship." Justia. Retrieved online: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/397/358/case.html
Parameters of the Juvenile Justice System Development The current juvenile system in the U.S. traces its roots to more than 100 years of legal practices and traditions. Additionally, social values, and emerging trends have continued to improve the system. In ancient Greece and Rome, a thin line of distinction existed between the expectations & rights of children and adults. Children were treated in a similar way the adults were treated (Historical
Due Process and the Significance of Interpretation The concept of "Due Process" is a uniquely American one, the significance of which has changed as much as has the societal and political times of the American nation. Today, some critics argue that Due Process is a thing of the past, what with the passing and signing into law of the National Defense Authorization Act, which authorizes the military to arrest and detain
The Court found that the procedures used in Gault's case met none of these requirements' (Oyez, 2009). In re Winship (1970) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was not acceptable to find a juvenile guilty of a crime by a 'preponderance of evidence' standard when, for an adult a conviction for the same crime would require a standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt" (Oyez, 2009). Parity between adult and
Nevertheless, there have been many decisions over the years that have tended to weaken the intent of the Framers. In 2001, in Zelman v. Simmons Harris the Supreme Court ruled that school voucher programs did not violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The decision represented a blow to the essentially secular nature of the American state and system. By allowing public money to be given to religious