Cynthia H. Roberts
The juvenile court is a noble institutiona noble, underfunded, often unappreciated institution charged with the most important duty imaginable, protecting and reforming our children when all else failed.
The juvenile court is one of the few places in society where the needs of children are paramount and where a passion for helping children defines its work. In the juvenile court, children are the absolute priority. The juvenile court is doing a creditable job under adverse circumstances toward achieving these goalshowever, a better job is needed and, fortunately, it can be achieved.
Most citizens see the juvenile court as an institution designed to deal with young offenders who commit crimes. Although this may be its most public function, the juvenile court is much more. The dispositions of child abuse and neglect cases and cases involving the termination of parental rights are equally and increasingly important functions that are essential to understanding the relationship between dependency and delinquency.
The juvenile court system was founded with high goals. In theory, the system was supposed to help and rehabilitate young offenders. It was designed to act as a guardian looking out for the best interests of children. In practice, juvenile court often failed to rehabilitate. It also denied young people the protection and rights guaranteed to adults. In many cases, juveniles were processed through a system with few safeguards and little hope of treatment. In 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court began to change the theory and operation of the juvenile justice system.
Should teenagers have the same rights as adults under the Constitution? Several cases have dealt with this question. The answer is not always yes and the court has said, in fact, that in certain instances teenagers can be treated differently.
In this section, we will discuss cases affecting teenagers. These cases will form the basis for classroom debates or in preparation for state debate competition. The cases discussed relate to the question of whether or not teenagers are entitled to the same protection under the law as adults.
The first session deals with cases relating to the 1st amendment rights of teenagers. The second section deals with Supreme Court rulings regarding the disciplining of teenagers.
Section 1 – Supreme Court cases affecting the procedural protection of teenagers under the Constitution.
In Re Gault - Minor’s Rights
WAS IT FAIR? In 1964, in Globe, Arizona, 15 – year-old Gerald Gault was charged with making an obscene telephone call to a female neighbor. He was convicted by a juvenile court in Arizona and committed to a juvenile correctional facility for an indeterminate period not to extend beyond his 21st birthday. Justice Fortas again wrote the opinion for the court and ruled that youth are also protected under the 14th amendment. He also stated that Gault’s constitutional rights had been violated and that Gault was entitled to:7
-
Adequate notice of the precise nature of the charges brought against him.
-
Notice of the right to counsel and, if indigent, the right to have counsel appointed.
-
The right to confront witnesses and have them cross-examined.
-
The privilege against self-incrimination, which applies to juvenile and adult proceedings.
The court also concluded that, because the non-criminal label attached to juvenile proceedings did not dictate the scope of the juvenile’s rights, calling such matter “civil” would not dictate the parameter of the rights prescribed. Gault marked the constitutional domestication of the parens patriae juvenile court, and a new era dawned based on a more criminal due process model contrasted with the historic informality of juvenile court proceedings. It decision affected the way all juveniles are treated in court today.
In re Gault, focused on children’s due process rights, and, in the 1990’s, to one focused on accountability and punishment. None of these, alone, is enough. Today, the court must somehow simultaneously afford children due process, deliver swift and appropriate punishment, and endeavor to rehabilitate and meet the therapeutic needs of juvenile offenders and their families.
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier – Student Censorship
The Hazelwood vs. kuhlmeier case deals with the first Amendment rights of students to free expression. The controversy began in the Spring of 1983 when Robert E. Reynolds, the principal of Hazelwood East High School, refused to permit the publication of two articles in the Spectrum, a school newspaper.
Principal Reynolds said he deleted the two articles dealing with divorce and teenage pregnancy because they described families and students in such a way that even though their names were going to tread on the rights of privacy of students and their parents.” School Officials further said that the newspaper was an extension of classroom instruction and did not enjoy first Amendment protection.8
A district court judge agreed with the school board’s lawyer who said that schools would be in trouble if people could change curriculum at the drop of a lawsuit. A court of appeals disagreed, however, and by a 2 – 1 decision overturned the judge’s decision saying the Hazelwood’s spectrum was, in fact, a public forum.”
When the case finally reached the Supreme Court on January 13,1988, the court ruled 5-3 that school officials have broad power
To censor school newspaper, plays and other “school sponsored expressive activities.
In this unit, students will read about young people under the age of 18. In some ways, these young people are probably a lot like them and their friends. In other ways they may be quite different. For the people they are going to read about have been in trouble with the law. They are just a few of the thousands of young people whom state and local government call juvenile delinquents.
Judge Maurice B. Cohill’s, Jr., a juvenile judge in Pittsburgh, described in a newspaper three cases he had decided. In the article, he argued that it was good that juvenile judges have a wide choice in the way they treat young offenders. After reading the following cases, see if you agree with judge Cohill’s decisions.
1). Beverly was in judge Cohill’s when she was 15. She repeatedly ran away from a home for emotionally distrubed children. There was no doubt that Beverly was emotionally disturbed. She was described as bitter and hostile, and she often banged her head against the wall. The people who ran the home where she lived said they could not keep Beverly any longer. No one knew who her parents were because she had been left in a garbage can when she was an infant. She had already been in three foster homes and an orphanage.
2). Nancy, 13, was picked up for shoplifting in a department store. When police couldn’t locate her mother, she was sent to a detention home. There it was discovered that the only person she was close to was a 16-year-old boy with whom she was sexually involved (a juvenile offense in most states). When Nancy’s mother came to her hearing, she sat in the back of the courtroom muttering dirty words. The judge thought the mother didn’t know where she was.
3). Ken, 14, took an old family car out for a ride without his parent’s permission. He had no driver’s license. He and a friend were riding along the highway when the car went out of control. It smashed head-on into another car, killing the other driver.
Students will think about each case. What do they think should be done about Beverely, Nancy,and Ken? They will discuss their opinions with other classmates.
The Supreme Court said: 1). Juveniles must be warned that they do not have to testify against themselves or give a confession. 2). Like adults, they are entitled to a lawyer for any offense for which an adult could have one. If they can’t afford a lawyer, the court must furnish one. 3). Juveniles must be told what the charges are against them soon enough to prepare for their hearing. 4). They have a right to confront the witnesses against them and cross-examine them. Witnesses must be sworn in.
