Statement of the Issue of the Case
The issue of the case is whether Samuel Winship is guilty of stealing or innocent of the deed. More narrowly, the issue is whether the respondent’s deed should be considered under the ‘preponderance of evidence’ stipulation enacted in civil courts or under the ‘demonstrating the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt’ used in criminal courts.
Details of the Case Background
Samuel Winship was taken into custody as a juvenile offender at twelve for stealing $112 from a woman’s purse (In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358). It was discovered that the respondent had entered into a locker and taken money from a woman’s wallet. The motion that accused the respondent of delinquency said that his actions “would constitute the crime or crimes of Larceny if done by an adult.” (In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, para. 4).
The Court accepted that the evidence might not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but dismissed appellant’s claim that the Fourteenth Amendment needed such evidence. The judge, therefore, focused on Section 744(b) of the New York Family Court Act (In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358). The accusation further claimed that Winship’s actions would have been considered theft if performed by an adult.
Court’s Ruling and Its Explanation
A Family Court declared Winship guilty while admitting that the evidence did not demonstrate his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, relying on Section 744(b) of the New York Family Court Act, which said that decisions of juvenile guilt must be based on a preponderance of the evidence. Winship’s argument to the Court’s application of the weaker “preponderance of the evidence” burden of proof was denied by the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court and the New York Court of Appeals (In re Winship). The Supreme Court, however, reconsidered the case.
The Supreme Court stated that by determining guilt solely through the ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ as is typical in civil proceedings, courts deprive criminal defendants of crucial constitutional protection against their fate being wrongly settled owing to errors (In re Winship). The Court ruled that simple differences in age among defendants do not justify the adoption of differing requirements of proof, as far as they all risk being imprisoned as a possible penalty.
Stance for the Ruling Handed Down
I believe the Family Court was not correct to be guided by the ‘preponderance of evidence’ stipulation instead of seeking to prove that the defendant is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. Under the law, civil courts treat underage offenders instead of criminal courts not to stigmatize them but to provide all chances for correction and successful integration into society. Therefore, it would be wrong to place underage offenders in harsher conditions than those provided for adults merely on the formal division of evidence needed for a civil and a criminal court.
Since the state seeks to create milder conditions for underage offenders in court hearings, the adoption of ‘preponderance of evidence’ criteria may, in turn, be seen as a stigmatization of this group. Furthermore, the placement of underage respondents in conditions worse than those provided for adults may push them to commit delinquencies in the future out of the feeling of the injustice of the system. Therefore, I fully support the Supreme Court’s ruling about the type of evidence to be used.
References
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970). US Supreme Court. Web.
In re Winship. (n.d.). Oyez. Web.