In
the early twentieth century, society began to differentiate childhood from
adulthood and began to value youth developmental status as a vulnerable period
of transition. The State expanded its involvement in youth policy as child
savers in reaction to the industrial revolution and mass immigration. The use
of reformed Houses of Refuge played an intricate role in educating as well as
correcting violent youth’s behavior to conform to societies standards (Morrill Lecture).
Compulsory education, child labor regulations, and the introduction of social
organizations such as the YMCA attempted to maintain the innocence of children.
The economic downturn of the Great Depression created an extended hiatus
between childhood and adulthood and brought a national youth policy into
existence. The 1935 National Youth Administration exposed the need for reform
in public education and attempted to educate and train all children, including
Negroes and girls. The reemergence
of prosperity post WWII accompanied a social push for all adolescences to
graduate from high school. By the
1960s, the youth gained a personal interest in public policy and took
significant action in the Civil Rights Movement (Morrill Lecture). Violent and
nonviolent youth protests sparked some fear within society. New court decisions
redefined the juvenile court structure and allowed juveniles the right to an
attorney. The War on Poverty launched certain programs and focused on providing
work opportunities for disadvantaged youth. The ups and downs of the American
System all seem to lead in a more fair and progressive legal tradition, yet
injustice still existed at times as stated In
Re Gault (1967). Despite all the
steps taken to make legal action toward juveniles just, the court failed in
their judgment of Gault and incorrectly sentenced him for his crime. Thankfully
the court system in the U.S. is open to appeals making this particular case
appear in the Supreme Court where Gault’s 14th Amendment rights of
Due Process were granted.
At
the time this case was heard, judges were to decide cases involving juveniles
as clinical (rehabilitation) rather than punitive (punishment) (Morrill Lecture).
The term parens patriae is used in
describing juvenile justice and how youth are looked at as dependents and that
it is the states job to make sure youth best interests are being looked out for(Morrill
Lecture). Gerald Gault was a 15-year-old boy that was taken into custody,
without his parent’s knowledge, after an alleged lewd prank calls to a neighbor
(In Re Gault). At the trial both Gerald Gault’s father and the complainant,
Ora Cook, were not present along with Gault’s procedural rights not being taken
into account. Some of these rights include the case and trial proceedings be
recorded for future appeals to the decision. Gault was sentence severely harsher
than an adult for the same crime. An adult charged with the same crime would
have received a maximum of a 50-dollar fine and two months in jail (Morrill Lecture).
Once this case reached the U.S. Supreme Court Gault’s lawyer argued that the
juvenile codes were invalid basing his assertion on the 14th
Amendment Due Process rights: (1) notice of the charges with regard to their
timeliness and specificity, (2) right to council, (3) right to confrontation
and cross-examination, (4) privilege against self-incrimination, (5) right to a
transcript of the trial record, and (6) right to appellate review (Morrill Lecture
and In Re Gault). The Supreme Court as well as for future juvenile cases
decided these six rights necessary for a fair trial and should be extended to
all individuals.
Gerald
Gault's rights were violated regardless of being an adult or not. As an
American citizen he deserved the same treatment as any other individual that
appears in court. Thankfully the Supreme Court recognized Gault’s rights being
violated and made the necessary decision to reform how juvenile cases would be
tried and decided. Before this case the law neglected youth/juveniles, and this
case was instrumental in giving youth equal rights to adults in the courtroom. Although
the 14th Amendment was not initially thought to apply to cases like
Gault, the inclusion of the Due Process Clause continually proved its
importance for juvenile cases. This case was progressive in the Supreme Courts
ruling to recognize the rights of youth and not treat them as unequal citizens
compared to adults.
"In Re Gault - 387 U.S. 1
(1967)." Justia US Supreme Court Center. N.p., n.d. Web. 01
Feb. 2014.
Morrill, Calvin. "Youth, Justice,
and Culture." Leconte 3, Berkeley. 30 Jan.
2014. Lecture.
The cases we focused on during lectures seemed to lean toward how underdeveloped juvenile justice was, and how unprepared we were at the explosive (and may I say revolutionary) events that occurred around the 19th and 20th century (like immigration, urbanization, and industrialization).
ReplyDeleteAnd we see how unprepared we were when we look at cases like Gault, just like you mentioned. I wouldn't focus too much on how innocent Gault was (though his crime was pretty innocent) but on how ridiculously the adults handled the case. Well, to be fair, it seems ridiculous today with hindsight to our advantage, because the judge who decided on this case most likely thought his sentencing was reasonable--which brings me to my point: juvenile justice was just way too underdeveloped. It was not that the judge was bad; he probably just didn't get a juvenile education in law school. It got better with new insight, though, as we saw with Gault's later conclusion stating that juveniles should have procedural rights. And just like you mentioned, the pregnant Fourteenth Amendment served as a mini-Constitution as its own, backing up rights for teens.
I also think it is important to understand how landmark cases, such as Gault, have restructured the procedures of Juvenile proceeding and establish a more fair and effective trial. In addition, I would love to see that you also include the arguments of the court for dismissing Gault’s habeas corpus petition, so the readers can examine the case study as its entirety. In both Ex Parte Crouse and Commonwealth v. Fisher, there was an emphasis that juveniles were not subjected to punishment; therefore, the rights to due process were not necessary, yet it was evident that the Industrial School could be considered as an institution of confinement. Hence, I agree with Chad that thankfully, the Supreme Court recognized the rights of youth and ensured appropriate safeguards.
ReplyDeleteChad’s blog post did an excellent job of summarizing a myriad of things, such as the history of juvenile justice, the Gault case, and the ramifications of the Gault case on the future of juvenile justice. The blog points out one of the major early flaws in the legal system; the fact that at the time, there were few guidelines in place on how to decide juvenile justice cases. As we saw with Gault’s case, the lack of guidelines allowed judges to deliver a number of unreasonable punishments upon the defendant. Although at the time something like this would be considered absurd, I would argue that it is completely necessary for the sake of progress. As Chad pointed out in his blog, from this case, it allowed the courts to recognize that just because an individual isn’t an adult, it doesn’t mean that they lose all their constitutional rights. Sometimes the only way to learn how to do something properly is to make a mistake first and then readjust based on that mistake. The outcome of the Gault case did exactly that by paving the way for how the legal system deals with youth criminal activity.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think Chad did a great job in articulating the key issues of juvenile law that we discussed in class. His essay illustrates the dilemmas that the justice system has when deciding the fate for a minor. I think there should be strict rehabilitative programs rather than incarceration for serious crimes and maybe less serious punishments such as community service for lesser crimes. I feel that juveniles need to see that there are consequences for their actions and they must learn from them. I think the courts have a tough balancing act between rehabilitative and being too harsh. I think many times a juvenile’s punishment is not structured and they are convicted again of committing a similar crime. I don’t think long-term incarceration is going to fix the repeat offenses. Furthermore, although I understand that the courts must have the final say, I think parents’ voices should be considered highly. Unless the parents are obviously absent in the juvenile’s life, they are the guardians and many parents want the best for their children and Gault’s lack of information to the parents is denying parents the right to make decisions for their children.
ReplyDeleteAs Chad argues throughout the essay, both the juvenile justice system and society's perspective on youth depend on the historical context and the development of thought at the time. When Ex Parte Crouse case appeared before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the upholding values of the judicial decision is largely marked by parens patriae. At this time, as Chad points out, the Industrial Revolution was at its height with child labor laws at its minimum and child labor at its worst nightmare in America. With the rise of population of youth in the society and yet lack of proper provision for them (education, child labor laws, etc.), the Court's decision to uphold the State's role as a parent to the "delinquent youth" seemed like a reasonable service to the beginning "reform" intents for the youth. However, In re Gault's case, we can also note how there is a paradigm shift in how youths, freedom, and fairness are perceived and interact with one another's principle. The 1960s is marked by freedom of speech movement, anti-Vietnam (anti-government) efforts, and the Civil Rights Movement. In this context, the denial of 14th amendment Due Process rights to the youth, as well as excessive punishment for a petty "crime" seem unfair. In this case as well, we witness how the historical backdrop interplays with the major landmark cases that shape the American legal world and the future of the juvenile law in the U.S. As Chad points out, history and law go hand in hand, complementing one another.
ReplyDeleteAs Chad rightly pointed out, In re Gault was an important break away from the traditional views of youth-as-impassive-objects to youth-as-rights-holders. For the first time, the courts recognized the reality that juvenile detention centers, euphemistically called "industrial schools," were in fact a form of imprisonment. I think often times it can be tempting and easy to write off the people in the past as foolish or blind, but the reality is that we are still wrestling with some of the same issues today.
ReplyDeleteAs Prof. Morill pointed out in lecture, disciplinary, prison-like institutions still exist under euphemistic banners such as the David Gonzalez Youth Camp in LA. This highlights the reality that we are still struggling with a root issue: the use of adult-centered perspectives as the foundation for the juvenile justice system. In the past, I would like to think people who implemented juvenile discipline centers in the name of “rehabilitating” youth had good, albeit misguided, intentions. However, the manner in which they implemented this discipline was problematic and unjust. As Bridget mentioned in her comment, I see Gault as emblematic of the tensions, and at times incoherency, that exist in the juvenile justice system. There is a fine line between rehabilitation and punishment. I think much of the confusion in the juvenile court system has to do with the ambiguity surrounding the question of what juvenile cases should be classified as since they are neither considered criminal nor civil cases.
Prior to In re Gault juvenile court didn't have much standing as a legitimate court, as the judges were pretty much free to give out whatever sentences they felt were adequate. Chad points out these discrepancies as a necessary precedent for the much needed transgression to youth-as-rights-holders from state dependents. Juveniles are also entitled, like any other citizen under the 14th Amendment, to the rights derived from due process.
ReplyDeleteThe underdeveloped early juvenile courts disregarded these rights likely due to strong beliefs in the state having power to do "what is good for the children". Judges were the direct representatives of the state, so they were able to make decisions and apply them fairly freely at their discretion , this is embodied in the six year punishment Gault got for his crime that an adult would have only gotten two months for. These old juvenile decisions seem drastic to us now , but it seems that they were pretty common in the era of underdeveloped juvenile courts, so it was necessary for these old ideas to be challenged and reformed in the way that they were to arrive at the modern ideas of juvenile justice we have developed today.
Chad has great points in his blog and I would add that youths were seen by the young juvenile system not as an extension of their parent's, but, as an extension of a society as a whole, giving the courts a paternal role in punishment discretion. This discretion over the youth, as Chad and others have mentioned, stemmed from many social climates at the time, including industrialization where many households had two working parents. Although the courts may have arguably been keeping the youths in their best interest, placing them in manual labor jobs and institutionalized were not affective, in my opinion it suppressed the issues. Today, because of formal legal mobilization like Gault, many of us have grown up in a society that is the opposite, where children are an extension of their adult guardian, and are rights holders. Understanding the historically legality aspect of what we take for granted today is an important factor in moving forward towards progress.
ReplyDeleteChad does a great job at depicting the stance of the juvenile justice system before, during and after the Gault case. It is important to be aware of this case case as depicting how capricious the juvenile justice system can be with its rulings (Morril Lecture). Additionally, the case is important because it recognizes the detention of youth as imprisonment and not as a "rehabilitative" detention--which was what the court argued previously. This is a landmark case for juvenile justice because it guarantees youth have procedural constraints in the juvenile justice system. This case depicts the youth-as-not-quite-adults notion that was discussed in class and discussion sections.
ReplyDelete