Customer center

We are a boutique essay service, not a mass production custom writing factory. Let us create a perfect paper for you today!

Example research essay topic: Juvenile Crime Contract Law - 2,191 words

NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote

... us showing no change in the return to crime for the mediated group. Barriers to Mediation Which Apply to Juveniles The statistics of most mediation programs show a high rate of juveniles following through once the agreement is drawn up. However, basic contract law makes contracts that are normally binding voidable at the will of a minor. 27 U.

Tol. L. Rev. 897, 905. This ability to void contracts could pose a problem in the ultimate success of juvenile mediations. Contract law poses some interesting questions about the contracts drawn up in juvenile mediations.

The Restatement of Contracts states that "Unless a statute provides otherwise, a natural person has the capacity to incur only voidable contractual duties until the day before the person's eighteenth birthday. Restatement (Second) of Contracts 14 (1981). Courts often enforce an infant's ability to void their contract with the rationale that the more experienced adult can take advantage of him. See, Kiefer v. Fred Howe Motors, Inc. , 158 N.

W. 2 d 288 (Wis. 1968), Halbman v. Lemke, 28 N. W. 2 d 562 (Wis. 1980). Contracts are also unenforceable where they are unconscionable. Unconscionable contracts arise in two instances. The first involves contracts in which the parties are not bargaining from equal positions, creating an agreement that is unfair to the weaker party.

The second example of where unconscionable contracts can occur is where the contract contains an adhesion clause that are so one sided that they benefit one party while detriment ing another. U. C. C. 2 - 302 (1995). A famous case involving unconscionable contracts is Williams v.

Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. , 350 F. 2 d 445 (D. C. Cir. 1965), where the court outlined several factors to be considered when determining if there was meaningful choice is the contract terms. These factors include the manner in which the agreement was entered, the weaker party's education or lack of it, and whether important terms were masked or minimized by deceptive practices. Id. at 448.

A final principle of contract law which could effect agreements with juveniles is the duty of good faith and fair dealing with the performance of every contract. U. C. C. 1 - 203 (1995). Good Faith is defined as "honesty in fact in the conduct or transaction concerned. U.

C. C. 1 - 201 (1995). While the U. C. C. applies to the sale of goods, the principle of good faith runs throughout contract law.

U. C. C. 1 - 203 cmt. (1995). In parent-teen mediations the teens are told from the beginning that the agreement is unenforceable, and that if they follow through it has to be of their own will to make their lives and relationships with their parents better. However, in victim / offender mediations the agreement is not entirely unenforceable because the offender can face sanctions by the court if he does not follow through. Some commentators on the growth of juvenile mediation argue that juveniles should not have to enter into written agreements in mediations at all because they are unenforceable. 27 U.

Tol. L. Rev. 897, 911 - 912. These commentators argue that juveniles are in a position of unequal bargaining power when they negotiate with their parents or victims because of their age, education and lack of life experience. Id at 911. Further, they feel that the juveniles are under pressure to enter into an agreement because they at times face worse consequences if they do not, such as punishment by the court.

Id. These factors all amount to a lack of meaningful choice on the part of the juvenile. Id. These commentators further feel that the parents can use the agreement as a weapon to exert power over the teen. Finally, they feel that there is an absence of good faith and fair dealing in mediations because the teen is not given the same procedural safeguards, such as the right to an attorney, that they are afforded in court. Id.

at 917. Even where the juvenile knows the agreement is not binding the success rates of the teens following through on their agreements are good. However, I would argue that these agreements should be binding on teens. In my opinion commentators who criticize the formation of written agreements during juvenile mediations do not give the young adults enough credit.

The parents and mediators involved normally have the best interests of the juvenile at heart, in search for a long-term change. To assume they are trying to use their superior life experience as a weapon goes contrary to the role parents and mediators play in society. The need for procedural safeguards such as a lawyer also does not play a role in mediation as it does in court. The law itself is usually left out of most mediations, which instead focus more on emotional issues.

The juvenile always has the option of foregoing mediation and going through the normal juvenile crime process. Further, the participation in the process is voluntary and the terms of the agreement are suggested and decided upon by both parties participating in the mediation, taking away the absence of choice. I feel that all contracts drawn up in juvenile mediations should be enforceable, as they are for adults. Because the juvenile voluntarily entered into the agreement, sometimes in lieu of a punishment by the court, it should be held to a very high standard. Such accountability would help reinforce the youth's feeling of responsibility in society and pride in the agreement, a work that they helped to create. The Restatement of Contracts 14 allows for some juvenile accountability for their contracts when it says "Unless a statute provides otherwise, an infant has only voidable contract duties. " Legislators should take advantage of this ability to make infants accountable for their contracts by creating statutes which make agreements formed in mediation binding.

I would propose for the government to create the following legislation: A contract shall be enforced as against a juvenile where it was created as a part of a voluntary mediation process in which the juvenile helped create the terms of the agreement and there is otherwise no evidence of bad faith dealing on the part of the mediator (s) or adults involved in the process. Such a statute would create a higher level of accountability than already exists in juvenile mediations, while simultaneously protecting the youth. In a society where juveniles are becoming increasingly more liable for the criminal consequences of their actions, it seems natural that they could be held liable for contracts created in mediation. The second difference between adult and juvenile mediations is the extent to which confidentiality rules apply. In adult mediations confidentiality agreements are strictly enforced by the courts.

State statutes such as the California Evidence Code 1119 specifically protect the statements made in mediations from being used outside the mediation. The public policy behind the enforcement is that the courts do not want parties to use mediation for discovery or to get an additional witness for the case by calling a mediator to testify. In juvenile cases confidentiality agreements are also adhered to, but not to the same extent as they are in adult proceedings. A confidentiality agreement will be enforced against a juvenile, unless it has the potential of infringing on their constitutional protections. The Supreme Court in In Re Gault, 387 U. S. 1 (1967) outlined the constitutional protections afforded to juveniles.

These rights include the right to notice, the right to counsel, the right of confrontation, the right to cross-examine witnesses, and the privilege against self-incrimination. Id. at 54. The importance of a juvenile's right to these due process protections has caused some courts to disregard the confidentiality agreements where they would interfere with the juveniles constitutional right to effectively cross-examine and impeach an adverse witness.

An example where a confidentiality agreement was disregarded was in Ringer v. Superior Court, 62 C. A. 4 th 155 (1998), a juvenile delinquency proceeding arising from an incident in which two minors allegedly threw rocks at a car. In Rinaker, the minors moved to compel the mediator to testify concerning the statements made by the victim during mediation when he admitted that he had not actually seen the persons who threw rocks at his car.

The court allowed the testimony and created the following balancing test for determining when confidentiality agreements should be set aside where juvenile matters are concerned: "The trial judge should conduct an in camera hearing to weigh the public's interest in maintaining the confidentiality of mediation against the minors' constitutionally based claim of need for the testimony, and determine whether the minors have established that the mediator's testimony is necessary to vindicate their right to confrontation... " Thus, the juvenile does not automatically have the right to breach the confidentiality agreement, but he can if it is necessary to protect his constitutional rights. While I normally hold constitutional rights to the utmost importance, as a mediator the fact that confidentiality could be breached and I could be compelled to testify is a great concern. When I am explaining the process at the beginning of a mediation I always emphasize the fact that everything said during the process is confidential. The disputants rely on these statements and it causes them to say things that they would normally hold back, increasing the effectiveness of the mediation. Testifying in court would also jeopardize my position as a neutral third party, a position which also gains the confidence of the disputants and causes them to participate freely during mediations.

Mediators in juvenile mediations need to disclose the fact that everything said during the mediation might not be entirely confidential, yet the disclosure of this fact could cause a breakdown of the process. Therefore, I would support breaching confidentiality only in the strictest of circumstances, with a more narrow interpretation than the one the court created above. Based on my research it seems that family mediation presents the best prospect for long-term results and best avoids the problems of contract law and confidentiality that can have an impact on victim / offender mediation. Family mediation creates communication and solutions within the family, which is the starting place for many greater offenses. If law enforcement more avidly promoted these programs it seems it would get to the root of the problem that many teens are having before they commit more serious crimes.

Family mediation also avoids many problems of contract law because the agreements reached there are always voidable. Thus, if a teen reaches an agreement in parent-teen mediation it is entirely voluntary, not because they risk some other form of punishment if they fail to do so. While I would support stricter contract laws for teens involved in mediation, parent-teen mediations avoid the problems of contract laws as they exist because there are no repercussions for breaching the agreement, other than the status quo continuing. Confidentiality rules also do not play as big a factor in parent-teen mediations.

Parent-teen mediations do not normally stem from an ongoing court case, as do victim offender mediations. Thus, there is little or no possibility of a due process violation, meaning that confidentiality will be preserved. Since many victim / offender mediations could result in a youth going to court if the mediation fails, confidentiality in these cases remains in constant jeopardy. I do not think victim / offender mediation should be eliminated. While this type of mediation contains the risks of violating contract law and confidentiality rules, the benefits to the victims seem invaluable. Some offenders interviewed after their mediations expressed the impression it made on them when their victim described how its child could no longer sleep at night because of what the offender did.

From the victim's perspective the mediation was also valuable because they were less fearful about being the victim of another crime when they heard the offender express his remorse. Because the statistics do not show a big drop in crime perpetration for the mediation participants, it does not seem like victim / offender mediation will be the solution for juvenile crime. But this type of mediation does pose an interesting alternative because by allowing the parties to express their feelings to each other, it could have healthier long-term results. Overall it does not seem that mediation will work in all cases. Whether it is parent-teen mediation or victim-offender, the parties both have to voluntarily agree to be there and participate in good faith in order for the process to work. Thus, it seems there will never be a mediation-only system for juvenile justice.

Further, while the programs have good results in status offender cases and smaller crimes, there are not as many examples of how it works with serious crimes. In serious crimes it seems less likely that mediation will ever play a large role because most courts and communities will want to remove these individuals from society rather than have them work out their offense with their victim. It could also have more serious effects on the victim if the offender is not remorseful, and the victim enters into the mediation hoping for some vindication. Bibliography:


Free research essays on topics related to: contract law, long term, l rev, good faith, juvenile crime

Research essay sample on Juvenile Crime Contract Law

Writing service prices per page

  • $18.85 - in 14 days
  • $19.95 - in 3 days
  • $23.95 - within 48 hours
  • $26.95 - within 24 hours
  • $29.95 - within 12 hours
  • $34.95 - within 6 hours
  • $39.95 - within 3 hours
  • Calculate total price

Our guarantee

  • 100% money back guarantee
  • plagiarism-free authentic works
  • completely confidential service
  • timely revisions until completely satisfied
  • 24/7 customer support
  • payments protected by PayPal

Secure payment

With EssayChief you get

  • Strict plagiarism detection regulations
  • 300+ words per page
  • Times New Roman font 12 pts, double-spaced
  • FREE abstract, outline, bibliography
  • Money back guarantee for missed deadline
  • Round-the-clock customer support
  • Complete anonymity of all our clients
  • Custom essays
  • Writing service

EssayChief can handle your

  • essays, term papers
  • book and movie reports
  • Power Point presentations
  • annotated bibliographies
  • theses, dissertations
  • exam preparations
  • editing and proofreading of your texts
  • academic ghostwriting of any kind

Free essay samples

Browse essays by topic:

Stay with EssayChief! We offer 10% discount to all our return customers. Once you place your order you will receive an email with the password. You can use this password for unlimited period and you can share it with your friends!

Academic ghostwriting

About us

© 2002-2024 EssayChief.com