In the reading In re Gault, it was determined the minor Gault violated a law and state ordinance by the judge when he was taken to court. The judge, McGhee, said that he had violated “ARS 8-201-6 (a), which specifies that a "delinquent child" includes one ‘who has violated a law of the state or an ordinance or regulation of a political subdivision thereof.’ The law which Gerald was found to have violated is ARS 13-377. This section of the Arizona Criminal Code provides that a person who "in the presence or hearing of any woman or child . . . uses vulgar, abusive or obscene language, is guilty of a misdemeanor. . . ." In my own opinion I do not believe that Gault had committed such a crime that deserved the kind of punishment he was sentenced. He was sentenced to spend the length of his minority, until 21, in a State Industrial School.
Gault and his friend had prank called a women and harassed her by making crude and lewd comments to her, which is completely wrong of them to do, but sentencing a minor to a State Industrial School until the age of 21 is a bit of a long sentence for that sort of crime. I do think him and his friend committed a crime by calling that women, but a misdemeanor at the most. The rights he should have been given in court was a fair trial for a kid his age. The judge was very harsh on him, which I guess may have been a
…show more content…
Making the boys work for free to help the community would have been a way for them to see they did something wrong but not have the extremity of being sentences to a State Industrial School for years. The punishment of making them do the community service would also give them time to think about what they did wrong. They would also be doing the service in their free time and it would probably prevent them from doing something like that again for fear of having to do more community service or