Do you think juveniles have the same due process rights as an adult?
In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967), was a landmark case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1967. The Court ruled that juveniles ( children and teenagers) have the same rights as adults when they are accused of a crime. For example, they have due process rights, like the right to have a lawyer...
Gerald Francis Gault, fifteen years old, was taken into custody for allegedly making an obscene phone call. Gault had previously been placed on probation. The police did not leave notice with Gault's parents, who were at work, when the youth was arrested. After proceedings before a juvenile court judge, Gault was committed to the State Industrial School until he reached the age of 21.
There was not Due process!
Were the procedures used to commit Gault constitutionally legitimate under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment?
Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment applies to In re Gault
The defendents of the Gault's family had two main arguments. They argued that Gerald's conviction was not legal because he was not given the due process rights in the Constitution. They also argued that the state's set of juvenile laws, the Arizona Juvenile Code, was unconstitutionall because it did not include these due process rights.
The Gaults' lawyer questioned Judge McGhee about the legal reasons for his actions. She asked McGhee to explain what laws he had used to find Gerald "delinquent." McGhee gave several answers: Gault committed a misdemeanor under the state of Arizona, He said Gault admitted making "silly calls, or funny calls, or something like that" in the past and that Gerald committed another misdemeanor two years ago and he deny it.