Recognizing Our Rights

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.

Beginning in the 1960s, the US Supreme Court decided on a succession of landmark cases that histrionically altered the processes and all around atmosphere of the Juvenile Justice System in America. One case in particular that played a major role in the Juvenile field is Kent vs. US (383 US. 541 [1966]). The landmark case Kent vs. United States, observed as the first chief juvenile rights case in our history. This important case established the collective standards that entitled juveniles the right to waivers and preliminary hearings, which ensured due process was served. This would ultimately decide if the court would shift Kent into adult jurisdiction or allow him to remain in the juvenile system.

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

Constitutional Amendments 4, 5, 6, part of 7, and 8 include our “Due Process” rights. Due process is defined as “a variety of procedural guarantees for those accused of crimes” The 4th amendment includes the right that protects people from unreasonable search and seizure and requires both probable cause and a warrant. It only allows the police to search for the person being arrested, things in view of that person, and things the person can reach that are in their immediate control. The 5th amendment protects against self-incrimination. People don’t have to answer any questions that might incriminate themselves and they can “plead the 5th” which means they are refusing to answer because it might incriminate them if they do. People have to be read their Miranda rights when they are being arrested and that lets them know they have the right to remain silent. The 6th amendment gives people the right to council and the right to trial by jury. So if you cannot afford an attorney you will receive a public defender to help with your case. You also have the right to a speedy and public trial by a jury of your peers. The 7th amendment protects you from being tried by a jury and then having the court overturn their decision. The 8th amendment protects against cruel and

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

In other words, the unanticipated result of the Supreme Court's Gault decision was to shift the focus of Juvenile Court from the child to the facts of the crime the child committed. Only after the legal issues are dealt with, after many weeks, months, or sometimes years pass, does the court belatedly turn its attention toward what should be done to help a child -- far too late in many cases. The child's rights are protected, but the child is not. And given the fact that most accused juveniles remain free while their cases slowly pass through the system, society is not protected, either.

They had the right to counsel, the right to receive notify of charges, protection against double jeopardy between juvenile court and adult court, and proof must be established beyond a reasonable doubt, and they do not have a Constitutional right of trial by jury. But, formal hearings were required in situations where youth faced transfer to adult court or a period of long-term institutional confinement. In 1984, the Supreme Court ruled that because of Parens Patriae, which was established in the England court system and cared over to the United States court system, juvenile could be held in detention until their court date or hearing (Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2017). Finally, the current period is the Crime Control Period from 1980 to present. In the 1980’s, the public view was that the juvenile court system was too lenient and juvenile crime were on the rise, but in the 1990’s many States passed the punitive law which included mandatory sentencing and transferring juveniles to adult court for certain crimes. Due to the increase in crime rate and the tremendously number of juveniles committing crimes, policies are focusing more on crime control

During the first sixty years of its existence, the practices and policies of the juvenile court went unchallenged. The original goal of the juvenile courts was to focus more on treatment instead of punishment.

There would be a constitutional issue because juvenile have certain constitutional rights at negotiation, such as the right to a lawyer and the right to challenge and interrogate witnesses, but they have no right to a trial by jury. The subject of juvenile’s rights is poorly defined in the courts, somewhat because the public as a whole has not decided how much independence to grant juvenile. When most juvenile’s supporters talk about juvenile’s rights, they are not stating to the same rights detained by adults, such as the rights to vote. Instead, they mean that more importance should be placed on juvenile’s standing as “regular persons” eligible of benefits under the law as providing in the United States Constitution and its Bill of Rights.

Thankfully for Jones, landmark cases such as In re Gault expanded the constitutional rights of juveniles. The Supreme Court stated in Gault that "neither the 14th Amendment nor the Bill of Rights is exclusively for adults alone,". This essentially included the Fifth Amendment. Such rights included; were the right to be given timely written notice of the hearing and the specific facts upon which the petition alleging delinquency is based, the right to be represented by counsel, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him. The court concluded that, for purposes of the right to counsel, a "proceeding where the issue is whether the child will be found to be 'delinquent' and subjected

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 most states, public safety and whether or not the needs of the juvenile defendant will

America is supposedly the land of the free. Also we are supposed to have the right to the pursuit of happiness. Why do some American’s have a hard time giving others their rights? It has been document in many different periods of American history where people want to deny others their rights. First it was the African American’s then it was the women and now it is the gays. We as American’s should not be taking away rights. We should be giving them to everyone. We deserve our rights to marry who ever we want, to fly the rebel flag, and woman deserve the right to choice what happens with their bodies.

I believe the novel would be more beneficial form the name “The Fight for What's right” because of the 3 biggest problem Racism, Sexims, and Preception which describes the life and pressure of Scouts struggles and actions during the time period of the 1930’s.