Fairness to the Juvenile Offender
![handle is hein.journals/mnlr41 and id is 550 raw text is: FAIRNESS TO THE JUVENILE OFFENDER
MON.D G. PAULSEN*
The procedure used in juvenile courts is the target of a steady
fire of criticism particularly with respect to juvenile delinquency
cases. We Need Not Deny Justice to Our Children is the title of a
recent article m the Civil Liberties Record,' published by the
'Greater Philadelphia Branch of the American Civil Liberties Union.
A California judge has written that the juvenile court is fast
developing into a complete system of fascism, as dangerous to our
institutions as commumsm.2 A writer discussing the Georgia
Juvenile Court Act has said. The flowery platitudes of this
act cannot close the gateway to tyranny which it has opened.5
It is surprismg to find such intemperate expression employed
with respect to legislation designed for humanitarian purposes. Men
of good will created juvenile courts for the benefit and protection of
children in the light of the appalling consequences visited upon
*Professor of Law, Columbia University. The basic research for this
paper was done m the summer of 1955 when the author held a smnmer re-
search appointment at the Umversity of Minnesota.
1. Civil Liberties Record of the Greater Philadelphia Branch ACLU,
Feb. 1956. The tenor of another article is also suggested by its title, Ellrod
and Melany, Juvenile Justice: Treatment or Travesty? 11 U. Pitt. L. Rev.
277 (1950). 'Philadelphia ACLU Aids Court Rights of Juveniles is the
headline over a two column article on page 3 of the monthly paper, Civil
Liberties in New York, Oct. 1956, published by the New York Civil Liberties
Uion. The article is written by Spencer Coxe, Executive Director of the
ACLU's Greater Philadelphia Branch.
2. Olney, Juvenile Courts-Abolish Them, 13 Cal. State B. J. 1, 2
(April-May 1938). In a like vetn: [I]t has become settled law in this
country that the constitutional guarantees applicable to crmninal procedure
accorded to known criminals, acknowledged Communists, and enemy aliens
before our courts, need not be considered in the sentencing to reformatories
of our young citizens adjudged to be juvenile delinquents. Note, Due Process
in the Juvenile Courts, 2 Catholic U. L. Rev. 90, 91 (1952) ; It is unfortunate
that the mechanics of that system are so ridden with danger to the persons
who are to be the object of that protection. 49 Geo. L. J. 138, 141 (1955).
See also the dissent in In re Holmes, 279 Pa. 599, 610-30, 109 A2d 523, 528-37
(1954).
Some of the criticism is more temperate. In the search for proner
judicial standards to govern juvenile court proceedings there remains a vital
balance of interests yet to be struck between an informal approach empha-
sizing reformation and rehabilitation, on the one hand, and a more formal
procedure designed to guard against punishment of the innocent, on the
other. 41 Corn. L. Q. 147, 154 (1955). See also Note, Riqhts of Juveniles
to Constitutional Guarantees in Delinquency Proceedings, 27 Colum. L. Rev.
968 (1927). Rubin, Protecting the Child in the Juvenile Court, 43 J. Crim.
L. and Crim. 425 (1952), is a constructive piece by one close to the juvenile
court movement.
Miller, Responsibility-In Criminal Law and in Treating Juvenile
Offenders, 23 U. Kan. City L. Rev. 267 (1955), makes the criticism that
juveniles should be held to a stricter responsibility for their choices.
3. O'Neil, Crimnal Law, 3 Mercer L. Rev. 46, 59 (1951).](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/mnlr41&div=30&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Fairness to the Juvenile Offender
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most