In Re Gault Case Study

Kent held that juveniles were entitled to a hearing, representation by counsel, access to information upon which the waiver decision was based, and a statement of reasons justifying the waiver decision. It included the sophistication and maturity of the juvenile as determined by consideration of his or her home life, environmental situation, emotional attitude, and pattern of living. These rights we made so that the justice courts can provide guidance and rehabilitation for the juvenile also with protection for society. There are some juveniles out there who are extremely dangerous and do not wish to change the way they are living their life.

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.

The juvenile justice system is a foundation in society that is granted certain powers and responsibilities. It faces several different tasks, among the most important is maintaining order and preserving constitutional rights. When a juvenile is arrested and charged with committing a crime there are many different factors that will come in to play during the course of his arrest, trial, conviction, sentencing, and rehabilitation process. This paper examines the Juvenile Justice System’s court process in the State of New Jersey and the State of California.

With the escalation of murders and rapes committed by minors as seen in recent years the people are looking for the right answer. Public concern over the effectiveness of the juvenile courts when dealing with these offenders has brought about change in the justice system. (Stolba, 2001). The courts now, are quicker to transfer a juveniles’ case to adult court than when the juvenile system was first formed. There stands a conflict of interests within the two court systems. Juvenile courts are to protect the rights of youths determined incapable of adult decisions. The primary concern is that the youth be rehabilitated and not become a repeat offender. Thus, protecting the child from incarceration with adult criminals and any possible future victims. The concerns of the adult court is to make sure the convicted offender pays for their crime and that the victim gets justice. Rehabilitation is not a primary concer of the adult justice system.

There was no notice made or left at the home and no other attempt to notify the parents that he had been taken into custody. Once Mrs. Gault learned where he was, by way of the Lewis family, they went to the detention center where he was being held. Probation officer, Flagg, told Mrs. Gault that a hearing would be held in Juvenile Court at 3 o'clock the following day, June 9 (In re Gault, 1967, page 387 U. S. 5). At the hearing on the 9th, Gault, his mother, his older brother, and Probation Officers Flagg and Henderson appeared before the Juvenile Judge in chambers. Mrs. Cook, the complainant, was not there. No one was sworn at this hearing. No transcript or recording was made. No memorandum or record of the substance of the proceedings was prepared (In re Gault, 1967, page 387 U. S. 5). Gault was questioned by the judge about the telephone call and was not advised he had the right to remain silent or confer with counsel. On June 11 or 12, after having been detained since June 8, Gault was released. There is no explanation in the record as to why he was kept in the detention home or why he was released. At 5 p.m. on the day of Gault’s release, Mrs. Gault received a note signed by Officer Flagg. It was on plain paper, not letterhead and read: "Judge McGHEE has set Monday June 15, 1964 at 11:00 A.M. as the date and time for further Hearings on Gerald's delinquency" (In re Gault, 1967, Page 387 U. S.

A 1967 the Supreme Court required juvenile courts to respect the due process of law rights of juveniles during their proceedings. The ruling was the result of Gerald Francis Gault. Gault had been placed in detention for making an obscene call to a neighbor while under probation. “The Arizona juvenile court had decided to place him in

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

Writing for the Court, Justice Abe Fortes declared, "Under our Constitution, the state of being a kid does not legitimize a kangaroo court." Reviewing the instance of 15-year-old Gerald Gault, who was condemned to six years in an Arizona youth restorative office for influencing a disgusting telephone to call, the Court announced that minors be managed the greater part of the due-process rights required in grown-up criminal courts. (Krisberg, 2018) Gault flagged another time of changes. One was a development to occupy whatever number young people as would be prudent from the formal court framework and to decriminalize "adolescent status offenses, for example, truancy, fleeing, time limit infringement, and hopelessness. The 1970s saw across the board endeavors to deinstitutionalize or "decarcerate" youths, moving them from secure detainment focuses and preparing schools to network based projects that underlined instruction and

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.

According to Caldwell (1961) the juvenile justice system is based on the principle that youth are developmentally and fundamentally different from adults. According to Mack (1909) the focus of the juvenile justice system has shifted from “was the crime committed” to “why did the child commit the crime”, “how can we help the child”. When performing as it is designed and up to the initial intentions, the juvenile court balances rehabilitation (treatment) of the offender with suitable sanctions when necessary such as incarceration. According to Griffin (2008) in some cases juveniles may be required to be “transferred” to adult court. In this paper I am going to discuss the three primary mechanisms of waiver to adult court: judicial waiver

In both Graham and Miller, SCOTUS stressed the possibility that harsh sentences for youth could be a result of the adolescent’s inability to deal efficiently and effectively upon their detainment. This includes their reduced competence for dealing with the execution of plea agreements, handling the police or demonstrating competent participation in their trials. The concept and discussion of “developmental incompetence” has become more noticeably relevant to juvenile justice in the past few decades. The

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.

Although based on the adult criminal justice system, the juvenile justice process works differently. Juveniles can end up in court by way of arrest, truancy or for curfew violations or running away. A youth may also be referred to the juvenile court system by school officials or a parent or guardian for being continuously disobedient. The juvenile justice process involves several different steps including intake, detention, adjudication, disposition and aftercare following release from a juvenile correctional facility. In this paper we will breakdown the numerous steps involved in the juvenile justice process as well as compared some

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.

In the case of Gault, they argued that the juvenile code of Arizona was unconstitutional: The justices found in favor of Gault include (1) adequate written notice of charges, (2) the right to counsel, (3) privilege against self-incrimination, (4) the right to cross-examine accusers, (5) a transcript of the proceedings, and (6) the right to appellate review. (Gault, 2002) “Nevertheless, more recent studies indicates that the system today has failed to deliver the procedural justice promised by gault. For example, misconduct which includes forcing unprepared parties to proceed with trial or a guilty plea, interrupting the lawyers’ witness examinations with their own questions, and cutting off lawyers questioning.” It was also revealed , “two-thirds of the surveyed court workers noted that