The Supreme Court ruling in In re Gault (1967) resulted in America changing its application of juvenile justice by attaching due process rights and privileges that are afforded to adults (Koroknay-Palicz, n.d.). In this case, the only consideration by the Court was the problems presented to the Court in this case and no other aspects (Koroknay-Palicz, n.d.). Gault’s basic constitutional rights were denied. Said rights included the notification of charges, the right to counsel, the right to a transcript of the legal proceedings, and the right to appellate review (Snavely, 1968). Regarding violations of the Fourteenth Amendment in Gault, the courts failed to provide adequate notice of the hearings (Snavely, 1968). Appellants’ second contention was that the hearings were constitutionally …show more content…
Constitutional guarantees are offered by describing the juvenile court as civil versus criminal due to it not dispensing criminal punishment. Instead, the juvenile court offers the theory that the state was acting as parens patriae for the juvenile offender. Comparing this charge to an adult, having been charged with the same, the adult may have only received a maximum sentence of a $50.00 fine and two months in jail (Facts and Case Summary - In re Gault, n.d.). Overall, the core purpose of the Juvenile Justice System is to promote safety within communities (Juvenile Justice, n.d.). Primary goals within this system include skill development, habilitation, rehabilitation, addressing treatment needs on a case-by-case basis, and the successful reintegration of juveniles into communities (Juvenile Justice, n.d.). Finally, its overall purpose of this system is to rehabilitate/reform juvenile delinquents in order to better the future of the juvenile and to reintroduce him/her back into the community as a law-abiding