The Pros And Cons Of Juvenile Justice

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.

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.

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

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.

To completely understand the current issues surrounding the direction of the juvenile justice system is easy to obtain when one focuses on how the juvenile justice system has changed since its inception. The United States wanted to reform its policies for dealing with juveniles that enter the justice system, so in the late 1800’s was the beginning of a number of reforms. Several reforms focused on protecting the rights of youth, such as through “due process of law”. The United States has shifted from their original intent and purpose for the juvenile justice system to a system more comparable to the adult justice system.

Youths are admitted to juvenile facilities for a broad range of issues, including status offenses, dependency, and criminal offenses. Juvenile courts have the power to relinquish its jurisdiction and have some young offenders tried in adult criminal courts. In Kent vs. United States, the Supreme Court held that where juvenile court jurisdiction is waived as a result of judicial waiver, a hearing with the essentials of due process must be provided, when jurisdiction is waived due to judicial waiver (Wizner, 1984). This case involved a sixteen year old juvenile that was tried and convicted in criminal court as an adult. Although his crimes was as severe as an adult (rape, burglary and robbery), the higher court saw it fitting to create a due process system for every court to be mindful of when allowing a juvenile transfer to criminal court by waiving their jurisdiction. Although it was “written in stone” many states did not find it necessary to abide by the rules and created their own legislative transfer (waiver). As a matter of fact there were jurisdictions where some district

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.

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.

Juveniles are not allowed to drink, drive, or get married, and are not capable of making mature responsible decisions, but can be on the verge of an adult sentencing. Juveniles’ tried as adults has been a major topic in the Criminal Justice system for many years. The controversy primarily focuses on the brain development, safety, and rehabilitation of the juvenile; versus an adult punishment towards them. These opinions have continuously produced outburst in the Criminal Justice system. Some argue juveniles should suffer the same consequences as an adult, if an adult crime was committed. Others reason juveniles as not mature enough to be kept in the same facility as adult offenders. Juveniles do not deserve to be tried as adults because

Juvenile justice is the area of criminal law applicable to persons not old enough to be held responsible for criminal acts (US Legal, 2015). Until the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in 1967 in In re Gault. The juvenile court system did now have legal constitutional rights. During the late 1980’s and early 1990’s there were more serious crimes starting to happen, and this is where the traditional emphasis on rehabilitation began to fade away and the justice system began to move more in the direction of tougher punishments for youth (DJS, 2015). In Maryland and Pennsylvania some of the milestones that came about throughout the years were in 2004 Maryland’s inquired the “step down aftercare”. This was to provide rehabilitation for the youth that will be returning back to their communities. In 2010 Maryland required that all law enforcement officers who were assigned to school grounds required competency model training. And in Pennsylvania the juvenile justice system required that all juvenile defendants are to be represented by counsel and the juvenile judges are to state their

In the latter part of the twentieth century juvenile justice practitioners and policy makers have had mixed emotions on how exactly the juvenile justice system should function and ultimately what purpose does it serve. In regards to youthful offenders the juvenile justice system was created to protect the child by offering alternative sanctions rather than the harsh punishment of the adult criminal justice system. Feld (1997) suggests that the aftermath of Gault and Winship has undeniably transformed the juvenile court system from a social welfare agency in a wholly-owned subordinate faction of the criminal justice system. With that in mind, one may assume that the emphasis of the juvenile court was to determine if a youthful offender was or should be labeled as a

Juvenile delinquents use to not face police or a correction system, only the fear and punishment of their families. However, as the juvenile delinquents aged they were faced with harsher punishments, but it was not until the 1800s reformers started looking for ways to teach values and built asylum and training schools. Then the concept of parens patriae occurred to establish the right to intervene in a child’s life when there were issues (Siegel, 2016). The next major change was in 1967 with the case In re Gault, when the Supreme Courts give juvenile due process rights and attorneys.

With the addition of JCA juveniles were then determined to have the right to due process, which resulted from re Gault in 1967.