In Re Gault:
In the case "in re Gault", the Supreme Court considered whether the way a juvenile defendant was treated violated his constitutional right to due process.
Background of the Case
Over time, states developed a separate court system for juveniles—people under 18 years old. The system did not follow normal procedures in criminal law. Instead, some rules were changed to protect young people. Other rules were designed to move cases involving young people quickly.
Gerald Gault was arrested early in 1964 and put on probation. If a person on probation commits another crime, the punishment is usually harsher. During his probation, Gault, then 15, was arrested again. At two different hearings, he was not given a lawyer. He confessed to the crime, though he was never told of his right not to respond to questioning. The court sentenced him to six years in a state youth detention center. For the same crime, an adult would have been sentenced to no more than a $50 fine and two months in jail.
Gault’s parents appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. They said that because officials took Gault’s confession without telling him of his right to a lawyer, his due process rights, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, had been violated.
The Decision
In an 8-1 decision, the Court ruled that the procedures the state used violated Gault’s due process rights. The justices said that officials failed to follow due process by not telling Gault’s parents of his hearing and not telling Gault he had the right to a lawyer. Another due process failure was not telling Gault of his right to remain silent. That right protects a person accused of a crime from making statements that could be used against him in a court of law. The Court said that the state cannot ignore the rights of juveniles. Justice Abe Fortas wrote:
“[T]he question is whether . . . an admission by the juvenile may be used against him in the absence of clear . . . evidence that the admission was made with knowledge that he was not obliged to speak and would not be penalized for remaining silent. . . . We conclude that the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination is applicable in the case of juveniles as it is with respect to adults.” —Justice Abe Fortas, In re Gault, 1967
Why It Matters
The decision extended due process protection to juveniles. Juvenile courts still struggle to balance juveniles’ rights with the desire to treat them differently from adults in order to protect them.
References:
http://connected.mcgraw-hill.com/ssh/book.lesson.do?bookId=3J7V8K9GB4R65JHYST6WNK6EEE&nodeId=Q9DTV8LQ5WOFXE7GH59F6YOQGM&edition=STUDENT
Over time, states developed a separate court system for juveniles—people under 18 years old. The system did not follow normal procedures in criminal law. Instead, some rules were changed to protect young people. Other rules were designed to move cases involving young people quickly.
Gerald Gault was arrested early in 1964 and put on probation. If a person on probation commits another crime, the punishment is usually harsher. During his probation, Gault, then 15, was arrested again. At two different hearings, he was not given a lawyer. He confessed to the crime, though he was never told of his right not to respond to questioning. The court sentenced him to six years in a state youth detention center. For the same crime, an adult would have been sentenced to no more than a $50 fine and two months in jail.
Gault’s parents appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. They said that because officials took Gault’s confession without telling him of his right to a lawyer, his due process rights, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, had been violated.
The Decision
In an 8-1 decision, the Court ruled that the procedures the state used violated Gault’s due process rights. The justices said that officials failed to follow due process by not telling Gault’s parents of his hearing and not telling Gault he had the right to a lawyer. Another due process failure was not telling Gault of his right to remain silent. That right protects a person accused of a crime from making statements that could be used against him in a court of law. The Court said that the state cannot ignore the rights of juveniles. Justice Abe Fortas wrote:
“[T]he question is whether . . . an admission by the juvenile may be used against him in the absence of clear . . . evidence that the admission was made with knowledge that he was not obliged to speak and would not be penalized for remaining silent. . . . We conclude that the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination is applicable in the case of juveniles as it is with respect to adults.” —Justice Abe Fortas, In re Gault, 1967
Why It Matters
The decision extended due process protection to juveniles. Juvenile courts still struggle to balance juveniles’ rights with the desire to treat them differently from adults in order to protect them.
References:
http://connected.mcgraw-hill.com/ssh/book.lesson.do?bookId=3J7V8K9GB4R65JHYST6WNK6EEE&nodeId=Q9DTV8LQ5WOFXE7GH59F6YOQGM&edition=STUDENT