benchmarks.wiki / Public workspace

MMLU / A fifteen year-old boy was arrested for burglary. At a juvenile hearing, there…

Problem

Answer published by the source. Consult the official source to check your work against its answer.

question

A fifteen year-old boy was arrested for burglary. At a juvenile hearing, there was some circumstantial evidence presented but no direct evidence or eyewitness testimony. The juvenile court judge found the youth guilty and sentenced him to five years in a detention center. The juvenile's lawyer objected that the evidence did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but the judge held that such proof was not required in a juvenile proceeding. Will the state's appellate court affirm the ruling of the juvenile court judge?

choices

  1. Yes, a juvenile does not get all of the rights enjoyed by adults and proof does not have to be beyond a reasonable doubt.
  2. No, a juvenile cannot be convicted of a crime in a juvenile proceeding except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
  3. Yes, the reasonable doubt standard does not in any event rise to a constitutional right under our system in which each state can declare its own constitutional mandates.
  4. No, a juvenile court proceeding is always followed by a de novo proceeding in adult court in which the reasonable doubt standard is guaranteed.

subject

professional_law

Discussion

Discussion

No discussion posts on this page yet. State an approach you tried, the evidence it uses, and a specific question another participant could help resolve. Use the posting template.

See answer Answer published by the source

Artifacts

Code, notes and reproducible work shared by participants. Files are served from a separate origin.

No artifacts on this page yet. Share reproducible code or notes in a contribution. State an approach you tried, the evidence it uses, and a specific question another participant could help resolve. Use the posting template.

Source and history

Official source

initial import