When someone thinks about the history and development of civil liberties in the United States, maybe the first thing that comes to mind is how some people were denied of these rights. From the lack of representation in government experienced by the colonists of the eighteenth century to the modern Civil Rights Act of the 1960’s, there have been multiple examples in our nation’s history of discrimination and due process rights denied to certain classes of people based on wealth, race and gender. What most people do not know, however, is that the same discrimination held true on the classification of age. Before 1967, children did not have the same due process rights as adults in criminal law. In fact, until the Supreme Court ruling delivered under In Re Gault, it was unclear as to what due process rights children possessed under the law.
In 1964, 15 year-old Gerald Gault was taken into custody by the sheriff of Gila County, Arizona after a neighbor, Mrs. Ora Cook, reported receiving a “lewd or indecent” telephone call. Gerald’s parents were never notified of his arrest and only became aware of it later in the evening when his mother went out looking for him and found him at the county Children’s Detention Home. According to Gerald, it was a friend who made the indecent phone call from the family’s residence and that once he heard his friend using vulgar language, he himself, hung up the phone and told the friend to leave. Judge McGhee of the Gila County Superior Court presided over the preliminary hearing the next morning, which ended when McGhee stated he would “think about it” and further remanded Gerald in custody without explanation. One week later, Judge McGhee found “that said minor is a delinquent child, and that said minor is of the age of 15 years”, and ordered him confined to the State Industrial School “for the period of his minority [that is, until 21], unless sooner discharged by due process of law” under the charge of “Lewd Phone Calls”. Essentially, Gerald was sentenced for up to 6 years of state confinement for making a lewd phone call. Ironically, at the time of the offense, had Gerald been an adult and convicted under the same statute, the punishment would have been limited to a maximum prison sentence of 2 months accompanied with a fine of $5 to $50.
Following McGhee’s ruling, Gerald’s parents petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus for the release of their son. The case was referred back to McGhee’s own Superior Court where the writ was dismissed. Following the dismissal, Gerald’s parents appealed and the case went to the state Supreme Court on the basis that:
1. The Arizona Juvenile Code was unconstitutional because it (a) did not require the accused or the parents of the accused be notified of the charges brought against them; (b) did not require the parents be notified of hearings; and (c) allowed no appeal; and
2. The Gila County Juvenile Court denied Gerald due process because of (a) the lack of notification of either the charges or of the hearings; (b) the failure to inform Gerald of his right to counsel, right to confront an accuser, and right to remain silent; (c) the admission of "unsworn hearsay testimony"; and (d) the lack of any records of the court proceedings.
1. The Arizona Juvenile Code was unconstitutional because it (a) did not require the accused or the parents of the accused be notified of the charges brought against them; (b) did not require the parents be notified of hearings; and (c) allowed no appeal; and
2. The Gila County Juvenile Court denied Gerald due process because of (a) the lack of notification of either the charges or of the hearings; (b) the failure to inform Gerald of his right to counsel, right to confront an accuser, and right to remain silent; (c) the admission of "unsworn hearsay testimony"; and (d) the lack of any records of the court proceedings.
The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the writ and the case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court. In an 8-1 decision the Court ruled that Gerald’s commitment to the State Industrial School was a violation of the 14th Amendment due process rights, since (a) he had not been notified of the charges against him; (b) he had not been informed of his right against self-incrimination; (c) he had been denied the right to legal counsel; (d) he was not allowed to confront his accuser; and (e) he was not given the right to appeal his sentence to a higher court. With this decision, the United States Supreme Court answered the question of what due process rights children possessed under the law. Juveniles must now be accorded many of the same due process rights as adults.
Source:
In Re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967)
Picture:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/
