Common law plays a big role in influencing the justice system’s development. Several laws and mandates can trace their roots to common law. Juvenile justice has also been heavily influenced by common law, and a number of cases have affected how justice is delivered to the youth. The discussion of the impact of Kent v. the United States, in re Gault, and Eddings v. Oklahoma cases and their impact on juvenile justice will be discussed in detail.
Kent v. the United States plays a key role in the development of juvenile justice as it serves as one of the foundations for the juvenile court (Vitiello, 1976). If the case had not existed, at their discretion, judges could have chosen to wave off cases they did not like, or to punish the defendant excessively by putting him in prison, which is designed for adults. This case made it possible for juveniles to get a fair shake in court, with the court granting them a trial that is deemed necessary under the confines of the law.
The case also granted several rights to juveniles. The case established a process for cases due to be waived into the adult system (Vitiello, 1976). It ensured that juveniles got a fair shake when brought to the criminal justice system. The case also established that the child must have an attorney, with the attorney having access to the juvenile’s record. This will help the attorney mount a solid defense. The case also created a domino effect, as after the publicity went public, legislatures around the country created policies and implemented laws to improve the juvenile justice system. This case is important because it shone a light on the state of juvenile justice and helped initiate the process of improving it.
The in re Gault case also helped to develop and revolutionize the juvenile justice system. Due process is an important aspect of the judicial system, as it ensures that a person receives a fair shake in the criminal justice system (Sterling, 2013). However, the case of Gerald Gault showed that it is important for juveniles to receive their due process, with all of the benefits associated with the due process being granted to them. This law guarantees that juvenile defendants accused of a crime have rights such as timely notification of the charges, the right to confront their accuser, the fifth amendment right against self-incrimination, and access to counsel (Sterling, 2013). These rights also guarantee that a juvenile’s case is properly investigated and, along with in re Winship, serve to improve the state of investigations when dealing with juvenile offenders. This law helped to improve access to justice for juvenile offenders as it guarantees that these offenders receive a fair shot at justice by granting them the same rights as adults in a court of law (Sterling, 2013).
The Eddings v. Oklahoma case helped to establish a policy to guide the judicial system on the use of the death penalty when dealing with a minor( Sellers, 2017). This law ensures that a defendant’s youthful age is considered when they are being prosecuted and serves to ensure that juvenile delinquents are not given the death penalty. Though the law does not state that a juvenile offender cannot be sentenced to death, it serves as a deterrent to judges to prevent them from sentencing young offenders to death (Sellers, 2017). This is important because the actions of youth should not be used to terminate a person’s life. Jean Piaget, a famous psychologist who focused on children, stated that a juvenile’s brain is still growing. In their adolescence, they are more prone to risk-averse behaviors than when they are mature. Sometimes, these risks can lead to serious crimes, such as the case of Monty Lee Eddings, who was sentenced to death after killing a police officer. This helps ensures that juveniles with similar cases are punished for their crimes while being given a chance to rehabilitate.
References
Kazi, S., & Galanaki, E. (2019). Piagetian theory of cognitive development. The encyclopedia of child and adolescent development, 1-11.
Sellers, B. G. (2017). Eddings v. Oklahoma. The Encyclopedia of Juvenile Delinquency and Justice, 1-3.
Sterling, R. (2013). Fundamental unfairness: In RE Gault and the road not taken. Maryland Law Review, 72, 12-17.
Vitiello, M. (1976). Constitutional Safeguards for Juvenile Transfer Procedure: The Ten Years Since Kent v. United States. DePaul L. Rev., 26, 23.
write