Best writers. Best papers. Let professionals take care of your academic papers

Order a similar paper and get 15% discount on your first order with us
Use the following coupon "FIRST15"

CRJ 301 week 2 dq 2


Ashford 3: – Week 2 – Discussion 2

Rights of Juveniles


  Read either the case study at the beginning of Chapter 5 about the “Juveniles   at the Plaza” or the case study about drug searches in schools. Both of these   cases deal with the legal rights of juveniles and interpretations of law by   the U.S. Supreme Court. Review the Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 amendments   to the U.S. Constitution, and identify the rights addressed in one of the   case studies. How is the right adjusted to accommodate for juveniles? Why do   juveniles have a modified right compared to adults? How do these   modifications change the roles and priorities of police when dealing with   juveniles? Should social justice concepts of dealing with juveniles take   precedence over criminal justice?

  Your initial post should be at least 250 words in length. Support your claims   with examples from the required material(s) and/or other scholarly resources,   and properly cite any references. Respond to at least two of your classmates’   posts by Day 7 and continue to support your arguments with examples from the   required material(s) and/or other scholarly resources.

  Review your classmates’ opinions in light of your understanding of the   juvenile justice system. In your response post, your focus is on the concept   of discretion. Take a look at the range of discretionary choices of police   officers. Though every instance in which the police contact the public is   unique, the range of response may vary considerably when dealing with   juveniles, and the concept of discretion plays a part in this interaction.   Should police have this wide range of discretion? What types of abuse can   discretion lead to when dealing with the public? Should police discretionary   choices be limited by factors such as the juvenile’s race, social class,   gender, demeanor or hostility, level of intoxication, perceived mental   status, or relationship to the victim or suspect? How can jurisdictions guard   against this type of abuse of authority?