Juvenile Justice Case Study

The Juvenile Court Act and Juvenile Justice Procedures – Midterm Essays
[NAME]
[CLASS-SECTION] – Juvenile Delinquency
Professor [NAME]
JUVENILE RIGHTS
There have been many significant rulings made by the Supreme Court involving juvenile rights in the juvenile court system which attempt to balance parens patriae and juvenile rights. The cases involving Morris Kent, Jr., Gerald Gault, Samuel Winshhip, and McKeiver stand out as most significant in the effort to strike this delicate balance.
The 1961 Case of Morris Kent, Jr. (“Kent”) (in re Kent, 383 U.S. 541 (1966) involves juvenile rights to a full investigation before a determination of waiver of trial is made. Kent confessed to the crime of rape and robbery and the judge automatically waived
Aside from the fact that the neighbor never appeared in court to make any statement against Gault, and there was no other evidence indicating Gault was guilty, Gault was sentenced to juvenile detention until he reached legal maturity.
During this so-called trial, Gault’s due process rights were consistently violated. He and his parents were not told what the charges were, “they were not made aware of their right to counsel, of their right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, of their right to remain silent, of their right to a transcript of the proceedings or of their right to appeal” (Cox, Conrad & Allen, 2003, p. 10).
The Supreme Court found that “in hearings that may result in institutional commitment, juveniles have all of these rights (in re Gault)” (Cox, Conrad & Allen, 2003, p. 10). The juvenile courts were changing as juveniles were gaining ground, being granted more of the rights and protections that are afforded adults.
The case of Samuel Winship established that the standard of proof would be the same in juvenile court as it was (is) in adult
The standard of arrest is more stringent for adults than for juveniles. A juvenile’s record is generally sealed when the age of majority is reached, juvenile records are expunged upon legal maturity and the record of an adult is permanent. (Siegel & Welsh, 2005, p. 274).
The purpose of the use of different terminology in juvenile proceedings is to avoid labeling the child as delinquent, so more delinquency is not encouraged from that label:
“One concern of the juvenile court reform movement was to make certain that the stigma attached to a convicted offender would not be affixed to young people in juvenile proceedings. . . . Juveniles are not indicted for a crime; they have a petition filed against them. Secure pretrial holding facilities are called detention centers rather than jails. Similarly, the criminal trial is called a hearing in juvenile justice system” (Siegel & Welsh, 2005, p.