Ct Juvenile: Fill & Download for Free

Yes. In fact a United States Supreme Court case held, quite some time ago, in a case called Roper v. Simmons, that it was a violation of the 8th and 14th Amendments to give a juvenile the death penalty. That was decided in 2005. And later, in that same line of cases they found that life without the possibility of parole for juveniles violated the 8th and 14th Amendments also. See, e.g. Graham v. Florida, 130 S. CT. 2011 (2010) Having banned the use of the death penalty for juveniles in Roper, the Court left the sentence of life without parole as the harshest sentence available for offenses committed by people under 18. In Graham v. Florida, the Court banned the use of life without parole for juveniles not convicted of homicide. The ruling applied to at least 123 prisoners – (77 of whom had been sentenced in Florida, the remainder in 10 other states) As in Roper, the Court pointed to the rare imposition of a particular punishment to prove that the punishment is unusual.

What obscure or archaic laws have been used in court? Were they upheld and did they lead to a win?A U.S. case was decided under an archaic law. The defendant was arrested for possession the day before he turned 17, tried in adult court, and convicted. He appealed, claiming that he was actually a juvenile of 16 and should have been tried in juvenile court. But under Georgia’s common law (at least in 2010), a juvenile legally turned 17 on the day before their 17th birthday. The court noted that the common-law rule had been criticized since at least 1896 and the law was indeed archaic. But since the Georgia legislature had never enacted a statute to change it, the common law still applied. The conviction was upheld. In re A.P.S., 696 S.E.2d 483 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010).A U.K. case that was not tested in court but nonetheless involved an ancient law is a curiosity. In 1322, Parliament enacted a statute requiring that “all beached whales and sturgeons must be offered to the reigning monarch.” Leap ahead to Wales in 2004, when a fisherman named Robert Davies accidentally netted a 9-foot, 264-pound sturgeon. Davies duly offered it to the Queen, who graciously permitted the fisherman to keep it. But because the fisherman put it up for sale, he landed in hot water—sturgeon are a protected species and can’t be sold. Ultimately, the fish was given to the Natural History Museum for preservation and study. And Mr. Davies was off the hook.

It’s hard to imagine how butterfly and moth metamorphosis could have evolved in a small sequence of steps given that it seems to be a discontinuous process. Anyone who has taken a general Biology course in school (I never did) will have seen pictures like this.[1]A lot of things happen in the chrysalis stage. A multilegged animal lacking wings turns into a six-legged animal with wings. The butterfly’s internal anatomy changes as well. You can see that in this set of CT scans. The tracheal system is shown in blue, the midgut in red and the Malpighian tubules in orange. [2] [3]The transformation from caterpillar to adult isn’t just complex, it’s irreducibly complex. All the biological functions in the chrysalis must work together or it won’t work at all. Looked at this way, it seems easy to see why creationists concluded that evolution could not have produced metamorphosis.[4]But things look different to those of you who have taken an advanced Biology course (which I didn’t take either). It turns out that insects have different kinds of metamorphosis and many of these aren’t as dramatic as those of butterflies and moths. This picture classifies the different kinds of metamorphosis into varying degrees of transformation.[5]It’s easy to see how evolution could have produced the minimal kind of metamorphosis, ametabolous, because the immature insect is generally similar to the adult.The next picture shows hemimetabolous metamorphosis in more detail.[6] The adult has the same basic body plan as the immature insect but its bodily proportions have changed and it has wings. Seen this way, it’s not hard to see how evolution by gradual change could have produced this form of metamorphosis.With a bit more effort, you can imagine how incomplete metamorphosis could evolve into complete metamorphosis. Here’s one possible evolutionary sequence.[7]The topmost sequence shows a typical hemimetabolous metamorphosis. Sequences below show a series of gradual changes which eventually result in complete metamorphosis like that in fruit flies or butterflies.Notice that, over generations, the earliest stage (protolarval or yellow) becomes more important while the intermediate stage (green or pronymphal) becomes less important until it is limited to the pupal stage.The letters JH in the caption mean Juvenile Hormone. The authors of this article propose that there were gradual changes in the timing and rate of release of this hormone. That hormone started out as a controller of embryonic development and gradually evolved, in a series of small steps, into a controller of metamorphosis.[8]All of this is hypothetical. There aren’t many insect fossils and ones showing transformations are even rarer. But here’s one set of interesting fossils.[9] These are separate fossils that have been assembled into a sequence. Insects 29 and 30 appear to have incompletely developed wings as if they were an early version of the pupal stage. Insect 31 looks like a later stage and insect 32 seems to be the adult. That sequence could easily have evolved through a set of small steps. It isn’t hard to see how an insect with this set of stages could evolve, later on, a more complex form of metamorphosis.ConclusionThe evolution of insect metamorphosis only seems impossible if you focus on the most advanced forms, like butterflies and moths. If you look at a broader range of insects, you see patterns that do fit evolutionary theory.What’s more, the insect juvenile hormone that regulates their metamorphosis seems to be evolutionarily related to the retinoids that regulate aspects of embryogenesis in vertebrates.[10] And some of the genes controlling metamorphosis have analogs in vertebrates.[11] So, studies of insect metamorphosis suggest that they are related to us.“Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”[12]More to readThis technical report describes how metamorphosis could have evolved. It provides a lot more detail and covers more aspects of this topic than I do.http://www.termix.ufv.br/Entomologia/ent/disciplina/ban%20160/AULAT/aula8/truman.pdfThis article from Scientific American explains the concepts more simply.How Did Insect Metamorphosis Evolve?If you like neat photos and cool animations, this National Geographic article describes development inside the chrysalis.This site provides a good introduction to the basic biology of metamorphosis.Why do insects metamorphose?Footnotes[1] Metamorphosis in Butterfly | Life Cycle of Butterfly[2] Metamorphosis revealed: time-lapse three-dimensional imaging inside a living chrysalis[3] 3-D Scans Reveal Caterpillars Turning Into Butterflies[4] Evolving Metamorphosis: A Hopeless Task | Evolution News[5] Redirect Notice[6] Redirect Notice[7] http://www.termix.ufv.br/Entomologia/ent/disciplina/ban%20160/AULAT/aula8/truman.pdf[8] https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/edc0/79300a94f170af8cc11a40c1a65883a50423.pdf[9] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/W_Shear/publication/249540542_The_ecology_of_Paleozoic_terrestrial_arthropods_the_fossil_evidence/links/5410446f0cf2d8daaad312b4/The-ecology-of-Paleozoic-terrestrial-arthropods-the-fossil-evidence.pdf[10] http://www.termix.ufv.br/Entomologia/ent/disciplina/ban%20160/AULAT/aula8/truman.pdf[11] ScienceDirect[12] Israel Ramirez's answer to Why is evolution considered to be the bedrock of the life sciences?