Arguments Against The 13th Amendment

The Fourteenth Amendment addresses various aspects of citizenship in the United States as well as the rights citizens are afforded. The most profound clause used in this Amendment is the due process clause which addresses equal protection of the laws. Overall the goal of the 14th Amendment was to ensure the enactment of the Civil Rights Act (1866) remained valid to ensure that every person born in the United States were citizens and were entitled to full and equal benefit of all laws. Nonetheless, the Fourteenth Amendment has gone beyond the provisions of the Civil Rights Act (Snavely, 1968).
Nonetheless, in the case of In re Gault, he was not afforded due process. The justice system failed to give him and his parents notice of the charges against him, failed to advise him that he could be represented by counsel, confront his accuser and witnesses or was protected against self-incrimination
(Snavely, 1968). The Justice system in Arizona also failed to allow him to appeal his case and failed to provide transcripts of his hearings. Consequently, it was held that Gault was not given due process and fair treatment in his court case. The juvenile court system restrained his liberty for years as they sentenced him to the State Industrial School for six years all because of misconduct of his behavior (Snavely, 1968). This was unfair treatment because had Gault been an adult, his punishment would have been a fifty dollar fine and two years in jail at the max. The fact of the matter is that, no matter how nice the title of the facility sounds, whether it be a receiving home or an industrial school, it is still an institution designed to confine and incarcerate juveniles for a period of time (Snavely, 1968).
Such a sentence would have changed Gault’s world as he would have surrounded by whitewashed walls, guards, other delinquents charged with rape and homicide, and would have had to adjust to the regimented routine of the facility (Snavely, 1968).
In this view, it would be astonishing if the United States Constitution did not require regular procedures and be consistent with it. Overall, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Gault’s favor and stated that juveniles tried for crimes in should have the right of due process as protected by the 14th Amendment, including the right to confront witnesses, and the right to obtain counsel which is guaranteed by the 6th Amendment (Snavely, 1968). In this ruling the Supreme Court also held that the purpose of the juvenile court was correction and not punishment. Juvenile proceedings are in no way criminal trials. They are considered to be adversary hearings in that whether the child is a delinquent, neglected, defective or dependent, the purpose and mission is to correct their condition as opposed to punishing them (Snavely,
1968).

Reference
Snavely, J.T. (1968). In Re Gault--Supreme Court Formalizes Juvenile Court Procedures. (Vol 5.) Retrieved May 7, 2017 from http://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1120&context=tlr.