Constitutional Rights Of Juveniles

In re Gault¹ stems from a case involving a boy named Gerald Gault who at the time of incident was a 15-year-old boy from Arizona who was charged with making obscene telephone calls to a neighbor, Mrs. Cook. Gerald Gault was sent to a detention facility without notifying his parents, questioned by a Probation officer without having an attorney or parent present, and after a short hearing, was found to be delinquent and sent to the state “industrial school” until he turned 21. After Gault was sentenced, his parents filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the state courts to challenge the constitutionality of the Arizona Juvenile Code and the procedures used in their son’s case. The petition was dismissed by both the Superior Court of Arizona and the Arizona Supreme Court. The Gault’s not satisfied with either court’s decision sought relief in the United States Supreme Court. Upon review, the Court agreed to hear the case to determine the procedural due process rights of a juvenile criminal defendant².

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Charles Keene was killed on the morning of January 23, 1983. His body was found in the Washita river of Grady County, Oklahoma, tied to a concrete block. He had been brutally beaten, shot, and stabbed several times. The murderers, a team of four, were ultimately caught and each given the death sentence, including, shockingly, the victim’s former brother-in-law: William Wayne Thompson, who was only fifteen years old. At the time, there was no national minimum age for the death penalty; states could execute whomever they saw fit. However, Thompson’s lawyers, citing the 8th Amendment of the Constitution, appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States on the grounds that giving the death sentence to a juvenile constituted “cruel and unusual

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.

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 the case of In re Gault, Gault was fifteen-year-old boy who was arrested for making lewd phone calls to neighbor, and he was transported by the Sheriff to the Children’s Detention Home (Cornell Law School, n.d.). Furthermore, no written notice was left at the Gault’s home to notify his parents of his confinement, and Gault’s mother eventually learned his was being housed at the Children’s Detention Home (Cornell Law School, n.d.). Gault’s mother was advised of his pending hearing by Deputy Probation Officer Flagg, and Gault was detained until the next day (Cornell Law School, n.d.). Subsequently, the initial petition filed provided no factual basis for the judicial action, and only stated than the juvenile was under the age of eighteen requiring the protection of the Honorable Court, citing Gault as a delinquent minor (Cornell Law School, n.d.). Officer Flagg executed a formal affidavit in support of the petition before the hearing was conducted. Now that we possess a general understanding of the case, let us analyze the issues and the court’s holding beginning with the initial hearing.

The proposed study is a cross-sectional research about why juveniles should not be put to trial and convicted in adult court and the factors that affect why they would be convicted in adult courts. The study would be conducted in two parts with both quantitative and qualitative methods. The first part of the study would be conducted in a juvenile and adult correctional facility whereas the second part of the study would take place in the city of Houston, Texas with university students and residents as test subjects. The juvenile and adult correctional facility directors would be contacted and informed prior to the commencement of the study. Two correctional facilities would be studied.

after being charged with the rape and beating of a twenty eight year old woman who was jogging in Central Park in New York around 1989. They were interrogated using the Reid technique, all being minors, with no legal counsel present, and after being held for thirty hours in a small, and dim interrogation room. Pressured, intimidated, and exhausted the young teens confessed and were found guilty sentence to forty-one years in prison for a crime they did not commit. Victims or racial conflicts in the 1990 law enforcement, judges, and jury were fast to sentence them and jailed without any proper evidence allowed in the hearing. They were sentenced as adults, being adolescent, becoming nervous by being in jail, and intimidated by police; they

Juveniles have different rights at the time of arrest then adults have. There are also additional protections for juveniles that adults don’t have. In this paper I will compare and contrast the additional protections afforded to juveniles as compared to adult offenders, I will discuss a juveniles rights at the time of arrest, and my opinion on whether or not the additional protections afforded to juveniles serve the purposes of social and criminal justice. Juveniles have rights when they are arrested, however some of them differ then the rights adults have.

According to Bartollas & Miller (2014), the Children’s Rights Movement and others juveniles should receive three basic rights: the right to treatment, the right not to be treated, and the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. The right to treatment refers to having the right for rehabilitation which may be needed for juvenile offenders. These offenders may be battling some sort of addiction which lead them to behave unlawfully and therefore should be given the necessary resources to help them while incarcerated or on probation. Another juvenile right is the right to refuse treatment. This right allows juvenile to refuse any services/resources available for them except for the following: services mandated by the court as a condition