Galamay,Johnray D.

BBA

Race v. In Jones, the US Supreme Court heard arguments and rendered a decision
in 1975. The District of Columbia's gun laws were under attack. The Second
Amendment's guarantee of the right to bear arms is not unrestricted, according to the
Supreme Court, and can be subject to appropriate local authority regulations. The
District's regulations, the Court reasoned, were reasonable and as a result, did not
violate the Second Amendment. Regarding the U.S. S. the Supreme Court ruled in
Breed v. In Jones, 421 U. S. 519 (1975), which states that a judge cannot order that
a juvenile accused of a felony be tried in an adult court instead of a juvenile court.
Several reports claim that the 1975 Breed v. Jones concentrated on the Fifth
Amendment's ban on double jeopardy. In this instance, a young person was charged
with grand larceny following California law, and the decision was later contested in
the Supreme Court. The double jeopardy clause, which forbade trying to prosecute a
minor as an adult for actions and attitudes that had already been decided in juvenile
court, was found to apply to juvenile court proceedings, the court found.

As they are not as fully formed or mature as adults, the justices reasoned, teenagers
shouldn't be held to the same standard of guilt as adults. Instead, they should have
direct access to the academic and rehabilitation services provided by the juvenile
court. Race v. Smith, 421 U. S. 519 (1975), held that a bank robber who had been
convicted had a right to a new trial despite having previously been charged with
violating the Dyer Act and attempting a robbery. Juveniles have a constitutional right
to due process, according to the Court.

The court found the evidence used to convict the accused to be insufficient. Because
the evidence did not fully establish the defendant's involvement in either offense, the
court claims the state court erred in refusing the prisoner a new trial. Finally, this
case shows how willing the Court is to order a new trial when the admitted evidence
is deemed insufficient. Animal v. Jones has played a critical role in recognizing how
juvenile offenders are typically handled by the criminal justice system. The Supreme
Court has established a significant precedent that recognizes the special challenges
that minors encounter in the criminal justice system by requiring a certain level of
maturity and knowledge from them. This decision holds that young people who
behave in ways that fall short of the maturity level expected of an adult may
occasionally be held accountable for their deeds. The way juvenile delinquency is
addressed in the United States has significantly changed as a result of this decision.
In addition, the Court ruled that the Double Jeopardy Clause applies to juvenile court
proceedings even though the juvenile would have been accused of crimes other than
those for which he or she has already been found guilty. Even though it's
acknowledged that kids sometimes don't fully understand the consequences of their
actions, this is the case. The court's ruling in this case fundamentally altered how
juvenile delinquency is handled in the United States by establishing criteria for
determining when a child may be held accountable and requiring that they be old
enough to comprehend the repercussions of their actions when they commit a crime.
It established a rule requiring some degree of maturity before accusing a child of a
crime and severely restricted the ability of prosecutors to try children as adults.

My learnings about the case are that if a youth has committed a crime that is
associated with adult crimes you need to have a youth detention center to be able to
rehabilitate the young offender because you do not want a young offender will be
prosecuted in the court which adult offender will go if they committed so youth
detention or child-placing agency which is the bahay pag-asa to rehabilitate this
young offender’s, research revealed that a teenager was found guilty of grand
larceny in violation of California law, and the Supreme Court heard an appeal. The
17-year-old kid claimed that being too young and not knowing enough about the law
prevented him from going to court. The minor must be cleared of all charges because
the Supreme Court determined that they were unconstitutional and that they were
unable to stand trial. Consequently, minors who behave in ways that are below the
level of maturity expected of an adult are no longer held accountable for their actions.
The way juvenile delinquency is addressed in the United States has been
significantly impacted by this case. It is understood that children may not fully
comprehend the seriousness of their actions, but the Breed v.Jones case significantly
changed how juvenile delinquency is perceived and addressed in the United States.
By drawing attention to the unique issues that affect children, it has played a crucial
role in ensuring that juveniles receive adequate and equitable therapies regarding the
criminal justice system.