In Re Gault (United States Supreme Court, 1967)
In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967): "Under our Constitution, the condition of being a boy does not justify a kangaroo court."
Gerald "Jerry" Gault was just 15 years-old when he was picked up by the police for making prank phone calls and sentenced to six years in juvenile prison. Jerry's six-year sentence stood in stark contrast to the maximum $50 fine that would have been imposed if he were an adult. Jerry's sentence for phony phone-calling came after a "trial" where he was not given notice of the charges against him and never represented by an attorney. Despite these clear violations of Jerry's constitutional rights, the Arizona Supreme Court upheld the sentence finding that the State of Arizona was allowed to deny fundamental constitutional rights to children because of their status as juveniles. Jerry appealed this decision to the United States Supreme Court, arguing that children should be afforded the same constitutional protections as adults.
The United States Supreme Court sided with Jerry and resoundingly reversed the Arizona decision. Stating that "the condition of being a boy does not justify a kangaroo court," the Supreme Court found that children need "the assistance of counsel to cope with the problems of law, to make skilled inquiry into the facts, to insist upon regularity of the proceedings, and to ascertain whether he has a defense." The Supreme Court went on to declare "the child requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step of the proceeding against him." This decision by the United States Supreme Court changed the nature of juvenile justice forever by requiring states to provide children with the same constitutional rights as adults.
Home