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>.
I agree with your analysis (Erfan) about the contrast between law on the books and law in action, the discrepancy is outrageous for kids not even to be considered for the same rights as adults. I'm glad this case came to light during a liberal era of jurisprudence at least kids were able to claim some of their power back.
ReplyDeleteErfan’s analysis describes the events that prompted the Court to reevaluate juvenile court practices. He details how the Court not only failed to achieve the “rehabilitation” initially sought by the juvenile justice system, but also cheated many juveniles out of fair procedure. I think the discrepancy Erfan pointed out between “law in books” and “law in action” parallels the notion that even the most benevolent intentions, such as those that prompted parens patriae and many other adult-centered approaches to youth policy, can produce malevolent, unjust, or at least unpredictable results in the absence of regulation.
ReplyDeleteI also think it’s interesting how Erfan describes that juveniles were treated differently because they were viewed as inherently different from adults. Does a shift toward more “adult procedures” in Court then imply that the Court began to view juveniles as more inherently like adults? Alternatively, has the shift in procedure changed the Court’s and society’s view of juveniles? Or, is the distinction between child and adult irrelevant, and did this decision simply mark an extension of Constitutional due process to all citizens regardless of age, capability, or crime? This seems to tie in with Professor Morrill’s discussion of how youth are defined and represented differently in various aspects of life, and emphasizes the ambiguity that challenges policymakers and parents alike when dealing with youth.
Erfan’s points out good points about the judicial system considered juveniles inherently different from adults. In the second paragraph he clearly states on how juvenile are treated unequally. He refers to resources of lecture and outside resources to analyze even further his point. Erfan’s clearly points out the failed system for juveniles. This is interesting because it creates a fundamental punishment instead of salvation. During lecture Professor Morrill refers, that youth have rights “under the Constitution, the condition of being a boy does not justify a kangaroo court.” Clearly, it has failed to address the best interest for juveniles as Erfan’s stated.
ReplyDeleteThe essay correctly identifies that the legal system at the start of the 20th century began to identify the time between adulthood and childhood as period of high importance, and with it came the belief that the basis and aim of the juvenile court should be to rehabilitate youth. The juvenile system was designed with the idea that it would not punish juveniles for their wrong doings and instead it would rehabilitate and “save” any juvenile heading down a criminal path. The essay is also able to connect the juvenile justice system to other ideas discussed in class such as, “law in books” and “law in action.” Although, the juvenile court had promised to protect juvenile different cases demonstrate the opposite taking place such as In re Gault. In Gault a minor received a much longer punishment by the juvenile court than it would have received if he had been tried as an adult. This illustrates how the juvenile court’s actions were contradicting its very foundations. This essay elucidates this through its explanation of In re Gault. Lastly, it is important to acknowledge that parens patriae is also an important idea behind the juvenile system, and it is this notion of paternalism that drives the court to take a more active role in the lives of juveniles in the first place.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your perspective Erfan. I believe that when you describe the judicial system following In re Gault, it pertains to what Professor Morrill states as “youth-as-right-holders.” I find it shocking that the juvenile court system would be so blindsided to believe that six years in a correctional facility would have been “rehabilitative” for a fifteen year old. I think that the juvenile court system must have had good intentions for wanting to rehabilitate the youth, but I agree with you when you say it was misused. This approach was misused in part because it was an adult-centered idea that they believed would work for the youth. Although they were looking out for the “best interest” of the youth, they really did not consider if it was rehabilitation or punishment in the youths’ perspective. As Llaned also pointed out in her response, the juvenile court definitely contradicted their foundation. The "specialized care" that the juvenile courts should have provided was not so much "care" after all.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Erfan does a very good job in showing how the juvenile court system contained many flaws. He clearly states how the juvenile court system failed to give juveniles the most basic of rights that must be granted to all adults in courts such as right to legal counsel and protection against self-incrimination among other things. He also points out how it is flawed in delivering punishment with the example from the case In Re Gault, where Gault was given a six year sentence whereas if he had been an adult he probably would have only received a fine of about $50 or at most. He uses these examples to show how although in theory the juvenile court system was aimed to be something useful and helpful for juveniles in preventing them from going down a path of crime later on in life, in practice it did not do that and actually caused more harm than good.
ReplyDeleteWhile this does a sufficient job of explaining In re Gault, its major influence on restructuring the juvenile justice system, and the overall effort to divert juveniles from the criminal justice system (to help children rather than hurt them), it seems to be more of a historical summary than an actual analysis. It would have been interesting to see a discussion of whether or not the court's goals for developing a different kind of juvenile system were actually met, how practical applications have failed, etc. The author does a good job of illustrating that the way children/young people were perceived in terms of the law shifted quite drastically (from being entirely dependent, helpless, etc. to being entitled to many of the same rights and protections as adults, at least in terms of court proceedings).
ReplyDeleteInitially the author of the essay remarkably points out the significance of the case In re Gault, as a turning point in the juvenile court system. Pointing out this case and going back in time and explaining how things were before the case was established as a statute I think contributes to a great approach for a strong argument. Integrating the notion of law in books and law in action I think also supports a stronger posture to the argument that the court had failed to serve the intention of the judicial system by helping youth towards a rehabilitation process that could ensure youth justice. Pointing out the justice systems failure to do their job, to serve justice, I think is well pointed out in this composition.
ReplyDeleteEfran Omidvari’s analysis is very concise explaining the history and I really liked the structure of this essay, for it was well structured to read along and understand what the writer was trying to say. The essay included the brief summary of the case and later explained how this case was prominent when thinking about the judicial system of juvenile. Also, his two reasons given for the idea of unfairness of juvenile court were precise too, because they point out the weakness of the research on children at the time, and the uncertainty of the children. We still have not figured out the best way to deal with juvenile justice but it is fair to conclude that it was even harder when people had attempted in the first place. Efran’s analysis effectively used quotes and compare and contrast to show that the case was important when thinking about juvenile court and the difficulty and sufferings people had to go through.
ReplyDeleteThis blog does a good job at discussing the case of In Re Gault, which is an important case that contributed to the structure of the current juvenile justice system. It discusses how this case became a landmark one that changed the perception and procedures of the juvenile justice system, granting adult-like rights to youth such as due process. Additionally, it points out the ‘law in action’ versus ‘law in books’ difference that was evidently occurring in the juvenile justice system. For example, the purpose of the juvenile justice system was to be a rehabilitation place for children who were not obedient or brought by their parents, yet in practice the rehabilitation centers operated very similar to prisons. This blog successfully demonstrates the trajectory of the juvenile justice system from a landmark case to discussing some of the flaws of the system. Furthermore, it provided me a new perspective on the emergence of the juvenile justice system because I saw the injustices that were embedded within the system, as juveniles were at one point unable to exercise any rights due to the lack of them.
ReplyDelete