About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

70 U. Chi. L. Rev. 39 (2003)
The Missed Opportunity in Gault

handle is hein.journals/uclr70 and id is 49 raw text is: The Missed Opportunity in Gault Emily Busst A century ago, states established a separate system of juvenile courts with a radical new mission. The aim of these courts was to help juvenile offenders rather than punish them, in a context stripped of the formalities of adult criminal court. By the middle of the century, however, these courts were widely perceived as failures that offered neither substantive nor procedural benefits to children. In 1967, the Supreme Court declared the procedural failings unconstitutional in the landmark case of In re Gault.' While Gault should be celebrated for its recognition that chil- dren, too, have constitutional rights, it should be mourned for its lim- ited vision of those rights. In assuming that children's due process rights would, at best, match those of adults, the Court foreclosed any thoughtful consideration of the changes required to make the juvenile justice system fair to children. The direct product of Gault is a set of rights ill-tailored to serve either the aims of the juvenile justice system or the interests of the children who hold those rights. More broadly, Gault's error helped establish a pattern of analysis which has stunted the development of children's constitutional rights overall.2 I. THE VISION AND REALITY OF JUVENILE COURT In 1899, Illinois enacted the first Juvenile Court Act,' and other states quickly followed suit.! These new juvenile courts had interre- lated substantive and procedural aims: The substantive aim was to re- spond to juvenile offending with rehabilitative treatment rather than retributive punishment.' The procedural aim was to replace the for- t Professor of Law, The University of Chicago. Thanks to Tracey Meares for her helpful comments on an earlier draft, to Sheila Beail for her excellent research assistance, and to the Ar- nold and Frieda Shure Research Fund for its financial support. 1 387 US 1 (1967). 2 For a broader discussion of the Court's mishandling of children's constitutional rights, see Emily Buss, Children's Rights on Children's Terms (draft 2002) (on file with author). 3 Illinois Juvenile Court Act, 1899 Ill Laws 131. 4 See Robert M. Mennel, Thorns and Thistles: Juvenile Delinquents in the United States, 1825-1940 132 (New Hampshire 1973) (reporting that by 1925, all but two states had separate juvenile courts). 5 Elizabeth S. Scott, Criminal Responsibility in Adolescence: Lessons from Developmental Psychology, in Thomas Grisso and Robert G. Schwartz, eds, Youth on Trial: A Developmental Perspective on Juvenile Justice 291,294 (Chicago 2000) (The new juvenile court was grounded in a commitment to the rehabilitation of young offenders and a rejection of retribution as a legiti- 39

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most