The case of In re Gault, a landmark case changing the structure of the juvenile court system, attests that different perceptions of law would result in substantially different outcomes. The In re Gault case was a turning point for the American justice system to look at juvenile delinquency proceedings differently and it granted children juveniles procedural rights in court such as the right to legal counsel, the right to be protected against self-incrimination, the right to witnesses and the right to confront the accuser(s).
Prior to the case of In re Gault, the judicial system considered juveniles inherently different from adults. Therefore, juveniles were subject to be treated in a different manner in the court of law. The first juvenile court was established in Illinois in 1899. At the time, the idea of a juvenile court was rehabilitation rather than punishment. There were two reasonings behind this idea. The first was that children were not fully accountable for their actions due to their lack of understanding of their surrounding environment. The second was that children were more responsive to rehabilitation than adults (Friedman). Such an approach left judges with a broad discretion which could be abused or misused.
There is no doubt that the intention of the judicial system was to serve a good purpose by considering rehabilitation for children. However, in practice, the rehabilitation centers were more similar to jails. This contrast between “law in books” and “law in action” created an unjust system for juveniles that could place them in rehab centers for several years for a simple misdemeanor. Professor Norman Dorsen of New York University successfully argued the case of In re Gault before the U.S. Supreme court. In an interview with NPR he states: “On the one hand, they were put in situations like Gerry's where they were, quote, ‘tried under some inadequate procedure, stood to lose their liberty for many, many years without due process’. On the other hand, the treatment that was supposed to be at the root of the juvenile system did not occur or if it occurred, they occurred only in very few cases”.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court saw Gault’s case revealed that the juvenile court system had failed to address the best interest for juveniles. Gault was sentenced to six years in a correctional facility. Had it been an adult, he or she would have faced a fine of $50. Such clear injustice forced the Supreme Court to grant equal constitutional rights for children. The Supreme Court was gravely concerned that “ juveniles received neither the specialized care promised by the juvenile courts nor the constitutional protections adults were entitled to, thus giving them ‘the worst of both worlds’”(Friedman).
Works Cited:
Dorsen, Norman, and Gerry Gault. "Gault Case Changed Juvenile Law." Interview by Margot Adler. NPR. 19 May 2007. Radio.
<http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10279166>
Friedman, Benjamin. "Introduction." UCLA Law Review. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Feb. 2014. <http://www.uclalawreview.org/?p=1535#_ftn33>.
