Constitutional Rights Of Juveniles

Five major court cases that influenced our treatment of juveniles today include Kent v. United States (1966), In re Gault (1967), In re Winship (1970), McKeiver v. Pennsylvania (1971) and Breen v. Jones (1975). Kent v. United States (1966) set the standards for transfers. In this case, the judge ruled Kent to adult court without consulting with the child, the child’s mother or attorney. It was this case that determined the attorney has the right to review documentation presented by the probation officer. Thanks to In re Gault (1967), juveniles how have a right to due process during any proceedings in which a juvenile is facing institutional confinement. It was also outlined in In re Gault (1967) exactly what a juveniles rights are during the entire process. Key rights are being notified of the charges brought up against them, right to counsel and cross-examination of witnesses by the attorney’s.

357). This case was brought up with Marsha Levick in order to show one major injustice that went all the way to the supreme court that ended up creating laws so that it would never happen again. Gault’s parents were not notified that he had been arrested, no one was sworn in at the case, and there was no record of what had happened during the trial (McNamara Pg. 357). Eventually this case ended up in the Supreme Court and changed the juvenile system forever. The ruling made it so that juveniles have a constitutional right to notice of the proceedings, right to counsel, right to confront and cross-examine accusers, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to appeal a decision (McNamara Pg. 358). This case changed how the juvenile justice system functions and made it so that children today can get a more fair

Supreme Court in which the ruling of the Arizona Supreme Court was reversed. The U.S. Supreme Court held that “Due process requires, in such proceedings, that adequate written notice be afforded the child and his parents or guardian. Such notice must inform them "of the specific issues that they must meet," and must be given "at the earliest practicable time, and, in any event, sufficiently in advance of the hearing to permit preparation." Notice here was neither timely nor adequately specific, nor was there waiver of the right to constitutionally adequate notice (In re Gault, 1967, pp. 31-34). It also held the “In such proceedings, the child and his parents must be advised of their right to be represented by counsel and, if they are unable to afford counsel, that counsel will be appointed to represent the child. Mrs. Gault's statement at the habeas corpus hearing that she had known she could employ counsel, is not "an intentional relinquishment or abandonment' of a fully known right"(In re Gaul,, 1967, pp. 34-42). In regards to the complainant not being present, the Court found that the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination is applicable in such proceedings. Lastly, the Court held that absent a valid confession, a juvenile in such proceedings must be afforded the rights of confrontation and sworn testimony of witnesses available for cross-examination (In re Gault, 1967, pp.

In re Gault was a landmark decision issued by the United States Supreme Court that provided juveniles delinquents similar due process rights already afforded to adults. For example, the right to notice of charges, the right to confront the accuser or witnesses, the right against self- incrimination, and the right to counsel. It established that juveniles, just like adults, are guaranteed a fair trial. Gerald Francis Gault made several inappropriate pranks phone calls to a neighbor while with his friend. After the neighbor made a complaint, officers arrived at Jerry’s house and took him into custody.

The United States Supreme Court ruled Gerald Gault had been denied several procedural and constitutional rights during his trial in the lower court (Justia US Supreme Court, n.d.). The court found the Juvenile Code of Arizona to be invalid as it allowed the court to have unlimited control over a juvenile, including the ability to remove the child from his parents then place them into a state institution without offering any explanation. The judgment of the court found six specific violations of the Due Process Clause as well as the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in Gerald Gault’s case.

During the trial, Kent counsel made the defense that he was not criminally responsible, instead, he stated that “his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental defect.” Although he did everything to prove his client was not fully responsible, Kent was sentenced to serve five to fifteen for each count he was charged with, his counsel went before the Court Of Appeals, and asked for a revisal arguing that Petitioners detention and interrogation was unlawful, the police failed to notify his parents as well as follow the procedure of the juvenile act. The case was denied by the Court Of Appeals but overturned by the Supreme court. This resulted in the idea that there must be waiver hearings before a juvenile can be transferred to criminal court, as well as a juvenile can consult with his or her counsel before and during hearings. Another case that is very important for juvenile rights is In Re Gault (1967), A fifteen-year-old named Francis Gault along with his friend were taken into custody by the Arizona police, now was already on probation for a previous offense that involved being in the company who stole a wallet and purse. The reason he was taken into custody was a neighbor who was a victim of his rude, sexual remarks and the cops arrested him and put him in a detention center until

One of the most debatable topics in today’s justice system is whether or not juveniles should receive waivers to adult court. There are three methods that are used to transfer a juvenile to adult court. Juvenile waiver, statutory exclusion, and Concurrent Jurisdiction are the three different methods used to transfer a juvenile to adult court. Statutory exclusion is when the juvenile is transferred immediately to the adult court. Concurrent Jurisdiction is when the juvenile may be tried as an adult and a juvenile at once. Throughout all three methods juvenile waiver is the most common one that is used throughout juvenile courts and used in mostly all states. The only states that do not provide judicial waivers are Nebraska, New York, and New Mexico. When a judge transfers a juvenile to adult court, he or she is denying the protections that the juveniles receive. The judge makes the decision of whether or not the juvenile is tried as an adult. Double Jeapordy laws protect the juvenile from being tried in juvenile court and then adult court because of the fact that a juvenile would be tried twice. Most times 17 or 18 year olds are the youngest age limits that can be waived to adult court, but in some states ages low as 13 or 14 can be waived. It depends on the crime that a juvenile commits on whether or not he or she is transferred to adult court. Once the juvenile is tried as an adult, he or she will be affect in the community for a lifetime versus having his or her records

Kenzie Houk had everything going for her. She was twenty-six, engaged to the love of her life, and was eight-and-a-half months pregnant. In the late winter of 2009, her four-year-old daughter waddled in her bedroom, hoping to surprise her mommy with a good morning smile. Instead, she found her mother with a bullet through her head. Eleven-year-old Jordan Brown, the soon-to-be stepson of Kenzie Houk, was arrested and charged with homicide, pulling the trigger before he went to school. There were two counts of homicide, one for Kenzie Houk and the other for her baby. Brown was tried in juvenile court and sentenced to a residential treatment facility until the age of twenty-one. To Kenzie Houk’s family, Brown’s sentence would never live up to that her four-year-old and seven-year old daughters would have to serve. “The day Kenzie was murdered, the whole family was served with a life sentence,” said Debbie Houk, the victim’s mother. “[Her daughters] are serving life right now. They are never going to see their mom” (Chen). Serious juvenile crimes, similar to this, cannot be properly justified in the juvenile justice system. Juveniles should be tried in the adult criminal court system for serious crimes because of the lack of severity in the juvenile court system, increased youth crime and recidivism rates, and the mental maturity of juvenile offenders.

They also had jurisdiction on all transfers into the adult criminal system. The civil proceedings, however, did not afford youths who were indeed facing a potential loss of liberty the due process of law rights explicated in the 5th and 14th Amendments, such as the right to trial by jury and the freedom against self-incrimination. These were guaranteed to citizens in the 5th Article of the Bill of Rights. The 5th Amendment to the Constitution, states that "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." The 14th Amendment required that all citizens of the United States receive equal protection under the law. The Amendment states, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

In 1967 stood a landmark U.S Supreme Court decision known as “In re Gault”. 15 year old Gerald allegedly made a prank phone call which ultimately resulted in him serving nearly six years in a state industrial school. Gerald was picked up and taken into police custody while his parents were at work, and were not notified or aware of his arrest. Reportedly Gerald confessed to the crime without his parents or a lawyer being present. Gerald was also not read his Miranda rights. The case ended up in the U.S Supreme Court as Gerald appealed. This resulted in the Court determining that the trail violated the 6th amendment which includes Gerald’s right to due process. Every citizen is obligated to and has the right to due process, this includes children.

Juveniles can be seen as a danger to society. Many people dislike childish kids that do not behave and that are a bother to society. But we should stop and think and ask ourselves, do we really know what they are going through in their household or at school? Society should not judge the juveniles by the way they look, dress or even by the way they interact with people. A juvenile should be should be convicted as an adult by court until found guilty.

Laws tend to make the lives of every individual safer and pleasant. The subject of this paper focuses on evaluating and identifying the Constitutional safeguards within the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments of the United States Constitution. How these safeguards to the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment will apply to juvenile and adult court proceedings. Finally, this paper will focus the impact that these safeguards, such as speedy trial, Miranda warning, exclusionary rule, and right to counsel will have on the day- to- day operation for juvenile and adult courts.

Kids should be subjected to the measures of punishment that our judicial system is giving to them. Kids who show lots of enmity should be tried as adults. It is the only way to protect the innocent children. These kids know right from wrong, but they choose to do the wrong things and violence is wrong. As the laws have gotten stricter on discipline the kids have gotten wilder. When we let society tell us how to discipline our children then violent children is the result.

When 15-year-old Gerald Gault was on probation, he and a friend made ‘obscene comments’ in a telephone call made to a female neighbor. At the hearing, Gerald had no counsel. On top of that, the victim, the neighbor, was not present, and there was no evidence presented. He was found guilty and sent to a training school. Personally, I think that the trial was really in violation of due process rights. From what I have learned in the past, all suspects have access to an attorney, and they have a right to be able to face the victim in their trial. Having Gerald adjudicated delinquent and sending to a training school was unfair to him. He had an unfair trial, and therefore should have had the option to be retried with the victim and an attorney present.

Juveniles committing crimes is not a new issued being introduced to society; actually, it has been an issue for centuries. However, the big question is, should juveniles be tried in adult courts? Before answering, take into consideration every possible scenario that could have led them to commit the crime. For instance, were they the leader in the act? Did they participate in the crime? Was the juvenile even aware of what was taking place? Were they peer pressured? Did they have any other choice at the time? There are so many other questions we could consider when making a decision here.