Juveniles Tried as Adults

Juveniles Tried as Adults

Juveniles Tried as Adults

Research Thesis Paper

Juveniles Tried as Adults

It found that the compromise between punishment and healing for juvenile offenders is a dilemma that the United States have to face since the inception of its judicial system. After declaring self-rule from Britain, the United States modeled its lawful system after the one well-known United Kingdom. It meant that, in the eyes of the law, little difference was made between children and adults. Kids as could be tried as adults if warranted by their crime. At the end of 18th century, psychologists and sociologists began to recognize the emerging notion of adolescence as a developmentally different era of life. This is the idea of managing adolescent offender outer of the adult court became more widely accepted but keeping in line with the idea that juvenile delinquent requires special care and treatment. In this case, the society had a role to play in the prevention of Juvenile delinquency that opened the first facility for disturbed youth in 1825. New York House of Refuge, on the other hand, was created as an option for juveniles who had committed an illegal act that would have likely earned them time in jail. But in 1899, what came into existence is the development of first juvenile court in the United States came into existence in Cook County, Illinois. The rationale that was behind the forming a separate justice system for youths. Its evident that this was based on the British set of guidelines for parens patriae, which gives a State meaning as a parent. What is provided by Sickmund and Snyder is that the set of instructions was to give an interpretation with a mean because children were not of full legal capacity, the state had the inborn power and accountability to protect children whose natural parents were not providing suitable care or supervision. The court system viewed insufficient parenting as part of the problem with delinquent youth and reasoned that, with proper intervention, troubled juveniles could be put back on the path towards becoming law-abiding, productive members of their communities.

In 1899 United States of America, made legal history when the world's first juvenile court opened in Chicago. The court was founded on two fundamental principles. First, juveniles lack the maturity to take responsibility for their actions the way adults could. Secondly, because, their personality was not yet fully developed, what could be noted is that they could receive proper corrective measures more successfully than adult criminals. More than a century later, these principles remain the benchmarks of juvenile justice in the United States.

A rising number of crimes committed by the kids are being subjected to trial as adults much the way they might have been before the beginning of juvenile courts. This stems from public outrage against children who, in increasing numbers, are committing violent crimes. But the overall rate of juvenile delinquency has been declining since 1995 which has seen a lot of cases come into existence to be televised across.

Since the early 1990s, there has been a standard way to adopt a tough approach to juvenile justice as a response. As of 2003, many states had adopted the kind of legislation that permits more children to be tried as adults. All these States have a provision allowing prosecutors to try juveniles as young as 14 years old as adults. In States like Indiana, South Dakota, and Vermont, children as young as ten years can be tried in a court as a mature person.

An example of a get-tough law is Michigan's Juvenile waiver law of 1997 is a measure of the lowered age that the juveniles can automatically be tried as adults. By adopting this rule, the State has taken away some of the judge's discretion in deciding whether the child can be tried in the categories available. But to effect this, some of the factors such as criminal history, psychiatric evaluation, and the nature of the offender's actions could not determine anything in the case.

Another example is the California's Proposition 21, which was passed in 2000 which was the law that allows prosecutors to send some juveniles with felony cases straight to an adult court. The prosecutors in these cases are the one to decide whether a minor should be tried and judged within the adult system this takes away the judges discretionProposition 21. This also prohibits the use of what was known as informal probation in felonies. The type of punishment exhibited here was offered to first-time juvenile offenders who admitted their guilt and attempted to make compensation. Finally, what could be noted with the proposition is that it requires a known team of individuals to register with legalized authorities like police agencies so that they can have increased in penalties for specified crimes.

United States justice department shows that prosecutors are actively putting these new more stringent laws to use against juvenile offenders, and therefore a Justice Department study released in the year 2000 which states that juvenile with crimes of violence is more likely to serve out their sentences in an adult prison unlike in the earlier times. But with the reports that two million adults currently incarcerated in prison, the number of juveniles in adult facilities is a minuscule percentage of the question of whether trying juveniles as adults are effective has generated considerable interest with some studies suggesting that, instead of solving a problem, trying juveniles in adult settings may make things worse. Which showed that minors who serve time with adults have a higher recidivism rate than those who serve with another juvenile. Therefore, the juvenile recidivists from adult facilities were more likely to commit more violent crimes than their counterparts in juvenile centers. Such groups like human rights watch have always raised complains concerning prison conditions that the juvenile may be subjected to in the adult prisons.

Aside from the argument on whether minors belong in adult prisons, is a no question that the practice that gained support and was in the early 2000s accepted by people who were seen to be affected. Whether the new get-tough policy so many states embrace would work remained to be seen, but it was certainly expected to stay.

What can be understood is that, by 1925, 48 States had accepted that juvenile delinquents required alternative care. This also gave them the responsibility to and established courts explicitly designated for offenders under the age of 18. What can be known about juvenile court’s approaches to carry out their rehabilitation remained unquestioned until 1960 when social activists started to doubt the effectiveness of trying and sentencing children separately. This resulted in the development of juvenile detention centers which were beginning to be more appealing for youths, opposed to centers for education to reintegrate children back into the community.

The juvenile justice system was founded with the goal to serve the best interests of the child, with an understanding that youth possessed different needs than adults. Transfer laws represent a departure from that traditional understanding of juvenile justice and are contrary to fundamental notions of justice. As the overwhelming majority of research studies show, the adult criminal justice system is ill-equipped to meet the needs of youth offenders at all stages of the process, from trial to sentencing options to incarceration. The findings of this literature review indicate that justice is not served by forcing juveniles through a system never intended to process youth and that transfer law have exacerbated the problems they sought to address includes,

For an extended period, laws allowing for the transfer of juveniles to the adult criminal justice system begin to develop in their popularity in the United States, while that myth has all but disappeared; the transfer laws and their disastrous effects are still present. The myriad of Transfer laws, policies, and procedures made it easier to transfer more significant numbers of youth to adult criminal court. State legislatures enacted statutes that extended the age and offense reach of judicial waiver, legislative waiver/automatic transfer, and prosecutorial discretion/concurrent jurisdiction policies of particular interest is the increased shift of discretionary power from judge to prosecutor, and an increasing number of juveniles are now transferred to adult criminal court via automatic transfer provisions. Notably, some states place no limit on the types of offenses for which the prosecutor may charge a juvenile in criminal court. Initiatives that make it easier to prosecute youth in adult criminal court have increased despite the decrease in youth crime in recent years. Studies report that over 200,000 youth under the age of 18 are tried annually in a court for the adult.

Sometimes, juvenile cases are transferred to adult criminal court through a process called a waiver. In this case, when a judge waives an argument, then protection is offered to the juvenile. Usually, such court cases are subject to waiver are those that involve more serious crimes from the young group who were once in trouble before. Although being tried in adult court gives a juvenile more constitutional protection, it has distinct disadvantages which include, the potential for a more severe sentence and the possibility of serving time in an adult correctional facility. What is known about most states is that, any young offender must be at least 16 to be eligible for a waiver to adult court. But, in some States, minors of 13 years could be subjected to a waiver petition having some States allowing children of any age to be tried as adults any crime committed. The current trend among states is to lower the minimum age of eligibility for waiver into adult court which is based on the fact that juvenile crimes are on the rise with the young group.

Some of the contributing factors to a court to granting a waiver petition and transfer a juvenile case to adult court include, juvenile is charged with a particularly serious offense, juvenile has a lengthy juvenile record, minor is older, past rehabilitation efforts for the juvenile have been unsuccessful, and lastly, youth services would have to work with the juvenile offender for a long time.

For this case, there are three ways that transfer proceedings can usually begin with most of all is through the request by the prosecutors. But juvenile court allows a judge to initiate transfer proceedings, unlike other States who may act contrary. But for the case where the prosecutor or judge seeks to transfer the case to adult court then, that minor is entitled to a hearing and representation by an attorney. Usually, the prosecutor must show probable cause that the juvenile committed the charged offense. While in the case where the prosecutor has established probable cause, the judge must then decide on the minor's chances of rehabilitation as a juvenile for purposes of making a decision which will be based on, background, court record, and willingness for treatment in the juvenile system.

If the judge transfers the juvenile case to adult criminal court, the case starts there at the beginning typically with the arraignment (formal, in-court notice of charges against the juvenile). Some states have automatic transfer laws that require juvenile cases to be transferred to adult criminal court if both of the following are true.The offender is a certain age or older (usually 16), and the charges involve a serious or violent offense, such as rape or murder.Juveniles subject to an automatic transfer can still request a transfer hearing in juvenile court. During that hearing called a reverse waiver or reverse transfer hearing—the juvenile (through an attorney) has the burden of convincing the judge to reverse the automatic transfer and allow the juvenile to be tried in juvenile court.

In our society, youth under the age of eighteen are restricted from many activities that are permitted for adults such as drinking, using tobacco, getting married, signing a loan, voting, and gambling. Despite this, our criminal justice system can and does transfer certain juveniles to adult criminal court. Nationally, law enforcement makes2.2 million juvenile arrests each year; 1.7 million of these cases are referred to juvenile court. It is estimated that as many as

200,000 children are prosecuted as adults each year. It is important to examine policy reasons when deciding whether a juvenile should be treated as a juvenile or an adult. The adult system is drastically different from the juvenile system. Because the adult system does not take into account the lack of maturity and development of a youth offender, the adult criminal court is not designed to meet the needs of juvenile offenders. Juveniles treated as adults are subject to the same penalties as adults. As a result, those juveniles will not receive rehabilitative or mental health treatment that would have been readily available if they had been processed through juvenile court. When a juvenile ends up in an adult prison, they have a high likelihood of being attacked or sexually abused by other inmates and are likely in an environment that does not foster rehabilitation.

Additionally, these juveniles will have criminal records, making it more difficult for them to be productive members of society. On the other hand, juvenile records can be sealed, giving juveniles a chance to become productive members of society without being tainted by a criminal record. There are reasons to treat a juvenile as an adult, particularly for deterrent purposes. If juveniles are aware the law is more lenient on them, it could cause them to end up in the system, simply because they are not deterred by the fear of punishment. For example, gang members are often aware that juvenile courts are more lenient than a criminal court and may, as a result, recruit younger members to carry out illegal acts. Thus, adult criminals may also be seeking to take advantage of a juvenile system that is not as harsh as a criminal court.

Ultimately, one downfall to treating juveniles as adults is that the

The juvenile system is cultivating a generation of criminals who are not deterred by a fear of punishment. The juvenile system needs to evolve with society because youth are becoming more and more sophisticated. On the other side of the deterrence coin, however, transferring juveniles to adult criminal court increases the risk of the juveniles to re-offend. Recidivism occurs when an individual is rearrested, reconvicted, or returned to prison during a three-year period following release. A 2002 study revealed that juveniles who stayed in juvenile court had a lower recidivism rate than juveniles who were transferred to adult court. Specifically, the report found that “49% of the youth transferred to adult court recidivated, compared with 37% of those who remained in the juvenile system.”

According to Judge Ladoris Cordell of the Superior Court of Santa Clara, who has presided over juvenile and adult cases, the goodness of the juvenile justice system is how it can be practical and adapted to deal with the needs of the particular situation touching on the minor. It's clear that all the kids ought to have an opportunity. But if that is not the case, then some cash is going to be spent for the justice of the kids. They are going to get out one day, and they're going to be back here in our faces again. Judge Cordell’s statement illustrates how beneficial and flexible the juvenile justice system can be for our nation’s youth. Additionally, based on adolescent brain science, these statements support the notion that juveniles may age out of delinquent behavior, as they grow older. In its Report to the House of Delegates, supporting the effectiveness of rehabilitation, the Criminal Justice Section of the

American Bar Association stated: Whatever the appropriateness of parole eligibility for forty-year-old career criminals serving several life sentences, quite different issues are raised for fourteen-year-old first-time offenders sentenced to prison. They may have committed essentially the same acts and have been convicted of the same offenses, but 14-year-olds, certainly as compared to forty-year-olds, are almost certain to undergo dramatic personality changes as they age from adolescence to middle-age. Sentences for such offenders should not conclude today what kind of adults these adolescents will be many years from now. Any parent knows, predicting what teenagers will become by next week, let alone when they have grown adults, is nearly impossible. The key decision should wait to be made until adolescents have reached adulthood and can be assessed more accurately at that stage of their lives. If they have evolved into promising and non-threatening adults, strong consideration should be given to various forms of release on parole for those juvenile offenders. Ultimately, the most persuasive policy reason for treating most juveniles as delinquent, rather than criminal, stems from scientific research. Brain imaging research shows that “the brain systems that govern impulse control, planning, and thinking ahead is still developing well beyond age 18. Further, behaviour studies suggest that juveniles have an underdeveloped ability to fully evaluate risks and consequences, control their impulses, and effectively handle stress, and say no to peer pressure. Notably, research has revealed that, unlike most adult criminals, juvenile offenders may discontinue criminal activity when they mature.

The pros and cons that can be seen of juveniles being tried as Adults

Kids committing crimes has been on the rise for the past days which brought controversial agendas the people were very passionate about, trying juveniles as grown up. Many differences exist between the justice system for juveniles and the justice system for adults, though a similarity can be identified with a core, it is surely not. Therefore, juvenile courts have no juries and no trials. But for the adult courts, this is contrary because the judges are difficult which may reduce the chance being off the hook with the slimness of the counseling. Thus the definition juvenile from an individual perspective is a person under the age of 18. But to have an understanding surround the argument, its best to gain some insight from both sides of the fight. Some of the advantages which are associated with the initiative include,

1. Brings Justice for Extreme Crimes the understanding of the word juveniles to represent the minor or maybe kids, what must come within them is that, they should have the ability to distinguish right from wrong, especially in extreme circumstances. This is important because they are subject to the fact any law available to guard the peace and morality of the land. Therefore, the affected still deserve a sense of justice if one of their family members is harmed or even killed by a juvenile offender. This is because, being a law-abiding nation, everyone is subjected to the law and none of the citizens is above the law. Thus, it means both the offender and the offender should receive protection from the existing laws of the land to allow justice delivery to every person.

2. Courts focus on age instead of crime- the idea surrounding this is that its seen as the key motive for the judges who are attending to every case that falls under the category of a juvenile is that juvenile courts have a strong tendency of having their focus on the age of the offender. This makes them not to have their focus on the actual nature and reason for the crime that committed. This has seen most of those who have been offended not satisfied in the justice accorded to them. In this case, a 10-year-old boy who shows no remorse for his crime would still be given an extremely lax sentence because of his age. Thus, it's clear that the juvenile can enjoy the outcome of the case presented to the court because majorly what the judges of the respective courts are going to dwell on the age factor of the offender.

3. Mature Mental Ability Begins Much Earlier –age is one of the key aspects which every being can value in their growth. In this case, it’s evident that as an individual is growing, there is a relation between the human growth and mental maturity and this has been given a correlation to exhibit similarity as an individual grows. Therefore, the majority of states have indicated that they consider children to be adults at the age of 18 which most of the nation have always adopted it worldwide in their range of confirming the age limit of maturing of a person. This is a very high number because teenagers have full control over their thoughts and actions. At the age of 18, there is a notion that the mental development of a person has matured and therefore it can have a distinction between morality and immorality. In this case, if they do not have the moral compass instilled in them by the time they are at the age of 18, then they are very likely to commit more crimes. Therefore, every person must see that by the time they re at the said age of 18 years they must be in a position to have a distinction of what is good for them within the environment, failure to which the law is there to counter any uncouth action.

4. Juvenile Crime is on the Rise- with the favors which have been there with the juvenile courts towards the young individuals has shown that the kids are taking advantage of it. This has indicated that relating to the past few years where we have recorded some crimes committed by a juvenile. This is a fact which is saddening based on how the boundaries are being more blurred for the young people. A good number of them are aware of just how flawed the juvenile justice system is and use that to their advantage. Due to this advantageous take by the majority of the children taking advantage of the favors from the juvenile court, it’s evident that there has been a rise in the juvenile crime which in turn has affected the morality of our societies.

5. The Right to a Trial By Jury – in most court cases, there is a procedure in case hearing which brings on board the existence of jury in the case proceedings. But this is contrary because what can be seen with the juvenile courts is that, they miss a jury, and offenders are not given a proper trial. Therefore, what can be seen in the courts of a juvenile is that instead of jury for pretrial the judge is given all the duties which make all of the decisions are often done with the help of a team of mediators for the children and their families which is done by allowing them to be tried as adults. This is only given by the existence of the mediator which may be considered to take all the responsibilities which can be carried out by the jury in the usual court cases for the adults.

Cons of juveniles being tried as Adults

The people saying that are probably thinking of the justice system as the "deep end" of the system, or the residential component. For the situation of their definition of juvenile justice is secure correctional institutions, then I would agree with them. But, the total juvenile justice system will all the type of hard work to see that the young people receive the necessary assistance to all them stay out of any crime. For the youngest and lowest-risk offenders, the justice system’s role should be secondary and involve coordinating and supporting the efforts of community-based groups and partners from schools and social services. The system should also avoid formally engaging young people as long as possible. But this does not mean that the juvenile justice system should turn its back on prevention and early intervention. It just needs to do these things with a light touch, by working resourcefully and in corporation with other systems, especially community-based programs and neighborhoods.  Thus, it’s clear that this has arisen to some cons of juvenile being tried as an adult and they include,

1. Put Young Offenders At High Risk - problems concerning the young individuals who are the offenders are being tried as an adult is the fact that they could be sent to an adult correctional facility. This is a perilous situation, especially if they are very young. Many of these juveniles lack the maturity to handle situations such as adult prison. Instead what they must have done is to partner with the juvenile agencies systems which are considered to provide an individualized response to each young person charged with a crime committed. The phrase used by most experts is that interventions in the juvenile system should be developed to complement the offenders rather than the offense. The criminal system is designed to provide a proportionate response for each offense which is existing at the given time. An interpretation of this is that all the cases that involving similar offenses are expected to result in similar sentences and punishments because of their similarity. The juvenile system, on the other hand, is designed to identify and address the unique factors behind each’s behavior. It's therefore important for them to be flexible in how it responds to youths and have the creative nature of the kind of interventions that are being used. If a juvenile justice system relies largely on detention and correctional placements, and if the restrictiveness of the response is gauged precisely according to the severity of a youth's most recent offense, then the system doesn’t deserve the juvenile label justice.

2. The message of lost hope-by giving all the juveniles extremely hard sentences, it's a notion that there is zero optimism for their future and there is no the lost hope of them being sober, but they would rather be considered as criminals and be convicted of their crimes. This is damaging to all of the society and especially for the young person and their family. Therefore what is import is to introduce a good thing that can introduce greater fairness into juvenile justice decision making. Once juvenile courts were expected to maintain fairness, however, policymakers needed some way to assess their fairness–some yardstick that could be used to measure the handling of one case against another. Over time, the idea of fairness inevitably became a question of proportionate punishment. As long as a youth with similar offenses and similar records are treated similarly, the process is accepted as fair. But, this approach accelerated the procedural convergence of juvenile and adult justice. Today you might hear liberal advocates saying that certain types of offenders should not be placed in to secure facilities because their past behavior does not guarantee the kind of intervention which is based on the severity of their offenses. This is ironical because the type of thinking is more like criminal law than a juvenile law with the assessment and fairness according to the balance between offense severity and the scale of intervention, liberal advocates help to hasten the “criminalization” of juvenile law.

3. Judges don’t have much variety for punishment-Judges in juvenile courts have the power to impose some action which includes, curfews, house arrest, and counseling to offenders. But judges in adult courts have much fewer options and usually, choose the prison one. Though many researchers have always come up with their views whereby, the people saying that are probably thinking of the justice system as the "deep end" of the system, or the residential component. Having their definition of juvenile justice being secure correctional institutions, then this will an assurity of how they operate. But, the total juvenile justice system includes all type of hard work to help young people to keep off trouble. The youngest and those with least risk offenders, the justice system’s role should be secondary and engage coordinating and support the efforts of community-based groups and partners from schools and social services. The system should also avoid formally engaging young people for as long as likely, but this does not mean that the juvenile justice system should turn its back on avoidance and early intervention. It just needs to do these things with a light touch, by working creatively and in partnership with another system, particularly community-based programs and neighborhoods. 

4. More Likely To Commit More Crimes-When you put a juvenile in a condition with hardened criminals, such as adult prison, they are still vulnerable and likely end up becoming involved in a gang or other criminal activities. Additional, this hinders their ability to rehabilitate after they are released. But more than that, you might even say that the juvenile justice system includes the agencies and community group that work with young people to abstract them from entering the juvenile justice system in the first place them from going back to court after a prior incident. These agencies may also work with young people instead of court adjudication. So, a judge might withhold formal negotiation as long as the youth and family agree to participate in a voluntary service plan. This could still be well thought-out part of the juvenile justice system. As all should have had all the forms of non-residential interventions. Even though after young people are adjudicated by juvenile courts, relatively few of them are placed in any correctional facilities. This has given out a demonstration that, most juvenile offenders are served by community-based, non-residential programs which are nonprofit, but they intend to offer support to the society. These allied agencies might be primarily affiliated with the child welfare system, or they might be drug treatment providers, youth prevention agencies. So, the inclusion of all the community groups and organizations that are involved in helping young people stay out of trouble and end up giving juvenile justice a pretty definition. 

5. Criminal records follow-Crimes that are in your juvenile records holds much less influence in the world than those on your adult record which can be executed in putting a juvenile into adult court which is also going to effect their adult criminal record. This will follow them all throughout life, especially when trying to get a decent job. In this case, we can try to get the basis of all this and its evident that, there are a bunch of exceptions in every state. Youth who would otherwise be eligible for juvenile handling only due to their age may be transferred to the criminal court. Some youths receive a transfer based on the crime committed an offense designated for criminal court processing in their state for example armed robbery or perhaps because they committed a particular offense after a certain age or maybe because they have committed too many offenses in the past (e.g., a third burglary charge). The decision to send a youth to criminal court will often be made by a judge after considering the facts of the case, in some states (e.g., Colorado and Florida) the transfer decisions can be made by a prosecutor without any input from a judge. Some states even make criminal court transfers mandatory or automatic for particular charges, based on laws passed by the state legislature and signed by the governor. So, the term “juvenile” is a legal designation that applies to some, but not all law violators under the age of 18.

Conclusion

What can be noted about juvenile justice study today is that, they are not focused on the need to build an effective number of juvenile justice system. This gives an avenue for anyone to pursue duplicate studies of the most celebrated program models or the most recent public safety crisis. Research on juvenile justice programs is not sought by fair investigators on a quest for truth and justice. This is conducted by people in heated competition for grant dollars and publications. Evaluation research is a competitive field, which may be effective for motivating researchers, but not so fine for setting the research agenda which is touching on the juvenile justice. Our current mechanisms for sponsoring evaluation research are not meeting our needs for intelligence. A research agenda targeted at overall system efficiency would classify the most urgent needs for confirmation and then makeup with the evidence with intention, greater efficiency, and less joblessness. To accomplish this, researchers need to work with partner’s community agencies, neighborhood leaders, youth themselves, and the families of youth involved in the justice system. The juvenile justice system will be more successful if it is well-versed by research conclusion, of the course, and the involved researchers should have a lot of contribution to the research agenda, but researchers cannot be the only basis of guidance for the design of effective program models. We need to create ways for all of us to work together.

REFERENCES

Allchin, Douglas. Error Types. <http://members.tcq.net/allchin/papers/e-types.pdf>.

Clifford B. Levine, Esquire1. United Artists: Reviewing the Conscience Shocking. 2012. <http://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1069&context=circuit_review>.

Crocker, Lawrence. Can the Exclusionary Rule Be Saved. 1993. <http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6778&context=jclc>.

Geyer, Florian. Fruit of the Poisonous Tree. 2007 April. <http://aei.pitt.edu/7386/2/7386.pdf>.

Johnson, Phillip E. The Return of the Christian Burial Speech Case. 1 january 1983. <http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1770&context=facpubs>.

MANNHEIMER*, MICHAEL J. ZYDNEY. COERCED CONFESSIONS AND THE. 8 july 2003. <http://chaselaw.nku.edu/documents/mannheimer/CoercedConfessions.pdf>.

OakS, Dallin H. Studying the Exclusionary Rule in. 1970. <https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/203NCJRS.pdf>.

Rosenthal', Lawrence. Seven Theses in Grudging Defense of the. 2013. <https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/1811/73403/OSJCL_V10N2_525.pdf>.

Sandra Nutley, Alison Powell and Huw Davies. What counts as. february 2013. <https://www.alliance4usefulevidence.org/assets/What-Counts-as-Good-Evidence-WEB.pdf>.

Scuro, Sante R. INTRODUCTION TO ERROR THEORY. 4 april 2004. <http://www.northeastern.edu/afeiguin/p1220-Fall2011/Error_Theory.pdf>.

Turne, Jenia Iontcheva. The Exclusionary Rule as a Symbol of the Rule of. 2014. <http://digitalrepository.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=smulr>.