In re Gault facts for kids
Quick facts for kids In re Gault |
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued December 16, 1966 Decided May 15, 1967 |
|
| Full case name | In re Gault et al. |
| Citations | 387 U.S. 1 (more)
87 S. Ct. 1428; 18 L. Ed. 2d 527; 1967 U.S. LEXIS 1478; 40 Ohio Op. 2d 378
|
| Prior history | Appeal from the Supreme Court of Arizona |
| Holding | |
| Juveniles tried for crimes in delinquency proceedings should have the right of due process protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, including the right to confront witnesses and the right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Fortas, joined by Warren, Douglas, Clark, Brennan |
| Concurrence | Black |
| Concurrence | White |
| Concur/dissent | Harlan |
| Dissent | Stewart |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. Amend. XIV | |
In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967), was a very important case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1967. This case changed how the law treats young people. The Court decided that juveniles (children and teenagers) have many of the same rights as adults when they are accused of a crime.
For example, young people now have "due process" rights. This means they have the right to a lawyer. They also have rights when police question them. These rights also apply when they are in court. Justice Earl Warren said this ruling would be like a "Magna Carta for juveniles." He meant it was a huge step for children's rights.
Contents
Understanding Juvenile Rights
Before the In re Gault decision, the Supreme Court had made other important rulings. These rulings were about "due process" rights. Due process means fair treatment through the normal judicial system. However, these rules did not apply to young people. They did not apply to cases in juvenile courts.
Protecting Adult Rights
The U.S. Constitution gives important rights to people accused of crimes. These rights help make sure trials are fair.
The Sixth Amendment
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution is very clear. It says that anyone accused of a crime has the right to a lawyer. "Counsel" is another word for a lawyer. This right helps people defend themselves.
The Fourteenth Amendment
The Fourteenth Amendment also protects people. It says that no state can take away a person's "life, liberty, or property" without "due process of law." This means everyone must be treated fairly by the law. It also means everyone gets "equal protection of the laws."
Key Supreme Court Cases
Based on these amendments, the Supreme Court made other big decisions. These decisions helped define due process rights for adults.
- Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963): This case said that having a lawyer is key for a fair trial. The Court ruled that any adult accused of a crime had the right to a lawyer. If they could not pay, the state had to provide one for free.
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966): This case created the "Miranda warnings." It ruled that people do not have to answer questions if it might make them look guilty. This is called the right against "self-incrimination." Before police question someone, they must tell them about this right.
However, these important decisions only applied to adult courts. The Constitution does not say rights are only for adults. But, American courts had not given young people the same due process rights.
How Juvenile Courts Worked
In the United States, there are special courts for young people. These are called "juvenile courts." They handle cases where children are accused of crimes. They also deal with young people who have serious behavior problems.
Each state has its own laws for juvenile courts. Often, if a judge found a child "delinquent," the child could become a "ward of the court." This meant the court took control over the child. The court could even take power away from the child's parents. For serious actions, a judge could send a child to a special school or juvenile prison. They could stay there until they turned 21.
Before Gerald Gault's case, young people had very few rights. They could be put in jail without a trial. Sometimes, they did not even know what crime they were accused of.
Why In re Gault Matters
Before In re Gault, young people accused of crimes had very few protections. This case changed everything for them. It gave "due process" rights to children and teenagers. These rights apply to all young people in the United States. They are not just for Arizona.
After this decision, all juvenile courts must follow the Fourteenth Amendment. For example, young people now have these rights:
- They must be told what crime they are accused of. They must also know when they have to go to court. This must happen early enough so they can prepare. They can work on a defense or get a lawyer.
- The young person and their parents must be told about their right to a lawyer.
- The young person (or their lawyer) has the right to question witnesses. These are people who say the young person is guilty. They also have the right to call their own witnesses. These witnesses can say the young person is not guilty.
- They must be warned that they do not have to answer questions about guilt. This is true even in court.
In short, In re Gault made sure that every juvenile court in the country follows the Fourteenth Amendment. This was a huge step for fairness for young people.
