Juvenile Justice and the Juvenile Justice and the U.S. Supreme Court U.S. Supreme Court

Sheila A. BediSheila A. Bedi

Deputy Legal Director Deputy Legal Director

Southern Poverty Law CenterSouthern Poverty Law Center

U.S. Supreme Court DecisionsU.S. Supreme Court Decisions

Right to CounselRight to Counsel Due ProcessDue Process Constitutionality of punishmentConstitutionality of punishment

Goss v. Lopez Goss v. Lopez Due process in school discipline Due process in school discipline

context context Class of student challenged Ohio statute that permitted school Class of student challenged Ohio statute that permitted school

officials to suspend for up to 10 days without a hearing. officials to suspend for up to 10 days without a hearing.

““Although Ohio may not be constitutionally obligated to establish Although Ohio may not be constitutionally obligated to establish and maintain a public school system, it has nevertheless done so and maintain a public school system, it has nevertheless done so and has required its children to attend. Those young people do not and has required its children to attend. Those young people do not "shed their constitutional rights" at the schoolhouse door…Among "shed their constitutional rights" at the schoolhouse door…Among other things, the State is constrained to recognize a student's other things, the State is constrained to recognize a student's legitimate entitlement to a public education as a property interest legitimate entitlement to a public education as a property interest which is protected by the Due Process Clause and which may not which is protected by the Due Process Clause and which may not be taken away for misconduct without adherence to the minimum be taken away for misconduct without adherence to the minimum procedures required by that Clause.” procedures required by that Clause.”

““At the very minimum, therefore, students facing suspension and At the very minimum, therefore, students facing suspension and the consequent interference with a protected property interest the consequent interference with a protected property interest must be given some kind of notice and afforded some kind of must be given some kind of notice and afforded some kind of hearing. Parties whose rights are to be affected are entitled to be hearing. Parties whose rights are to be affected are entitled to be heard; and in order that they may enjoy that right they must first heard; and in order that they may enjoy that right they must first be notified.”be notified.”

J.D.B. v. North Carolina J.D.B. v. North Carolina Custodial interrogationsCustodial interrogations

A uniformed police officer removed the 13-A uniformed police officer removed the 13-year-old student from his classroom and year-old student from his classroom and escorted him to a closed-door conference escorted him to a closed-door conference room, where he was questioned by police room, where he was questioned by police for at least half an hour regarding home for at least half an hour regarding home break-ins. The student confessed. No break-ins. The student confessed. No Miranda warnings were given. In denying Miranda warnings were given. In denying the student's motion to suppress, the state the student's motion to suppress, the state courts found that he was not in custody courts found that he was not in custody when he confessed, declining to extend when he confessed, declining to extend the test for custody to include the test for custody to include consideration of the age of an individual consideration of the age of an individual subjected to questioning by police subjected to questioning by police

J.D.B. v. North CarolinaJ.D.B. v. North Carolina ““A reasonable child subjected to police questioning will sometimes feel pressured to A reasonable child subjected to police questioning will sometimes feel pressured to

submit when a reasonable adult would feel free to go. We think it clear that courts submit when a reasonable adult would feel free to go. We think it clear that courts can account for that reality without doing any damage to the objective nature of the can account for that reality without doing any damage to the objective nature of the custody analysis.” custody analysis.”

““So long as the child's age   was known to the officer at the time of the interview, or So long as the child's age   was known to the officer at the time of the interview, or would have been objectively apparent to any reasonable officer, including age as part would have been objectively apparent to any reasonable officer, including age as part of the custody analysis requires officers neither to consider circumstances of the custody analysis requires officers neither to consider circumstances "unknowable" to them nor to "anticipate the frailties or idiosyncrasies" of the "unknowable" to them nor to "anticipate the frailties or idiosyncrasies" of the particular suspect whom they question, The same "wide basis of community particular suspect whom they question, The same "wide basis of community experience" that makes it possible, as an objective matter, "to determine what is to experience" that makes it possible, as an objective matter, "to determine what is to be expected" of children in other contexts, likewise makes it possible to know what to be expected" of children in other contexts, likewise makes it possible to know what to expect of children subjected to police questioning.expect of children subjected to police questioning.

““The effect of the schoolhouse setting cannot be disentangled from the identity of The effect of the schoolhouse setting cannot be disentangled from the identity of the person questioned. A student -- whose presence at school is compulsory and the person questioned. A student -- whose presence at school is compulsory and whose disobedience at school is cause for disciplinary action -- is in a far different whose disobedience at school is cause for disciplinary action -- is in a far different position than, say, a parent volunteer on school grounds to chaperone an event, or position than, say, a parent volunteer on school grounds to chaperone an event, or an adult from the community on school grounds to attend a basketball game. an adult from the community on school grounds to attend a basketball game. Without asking whether the person "questioned in school" is a "minor," ibid., the Without asking whether the person "questioned in school" is a "minor," ibid., the coercive effect of the schoolhouse setting is unknowable.”coercive effect of the schoolhouse setting is unknowable.”

In re GaultIn re Gault387 U.S. 1 (1967)387 U.S. 1 (1967)

15 year old Gerald Gault was picked 15 year old Gerald Gault was picked up for making prank (“lewd”) phone up for making prank (“lewd”) phone calls. calls.

Hearing was held before judge—no Hearing was held before judge—no attorney. Judge locked Gerald up until attorney. Judge locked Gerald up until his 21his 21stst birthday. birthday.

Court analysis difference between Court analysis difference between adult and juvenile proceedings: adult and juvenile proceedings: No right to bailNo right to bail No right to juryNo right to jury

In re GaultIn re Gault

““The early reformers were appalled The early reformers were appalled by adult procedures and penalties by adult procedures and penalties and by the fact that children could be and by the fact that children could be given long prison sentences and given long prison sentences and mixed in jails with hardened mixed in jails with hardened criminals.” criminals.”

In re Gault In re Gault Evolution of the Juvenile Justice Evolution of the Juvenile Justice

SystemSystem

““The child, essentially good as they saw it The child, essentially good as they saw it was to make to fee that he is the object of was to make to fee that he is the object of the state’s care and solicitude, not that he the state’s care and solicitude, not that he was under arrest or on trial. The rules of was under arrest or on trial. The rules of criminal procedure were therefore criminal procedure were therefore altogether inapplicable.”altogether inapplicable.”

““Juvenile court history has demonstrated Juvenile court history has demonstrated that unbridled discretion however that unbridled discretion however benevolently motivated, is a frequently a benevolently motivated, is a frequently a poor substitute for principle and procedure.”poor substitute for principle and procedure.”

In re GaultIn re GaultDistinctions between children and Distinctions between children and

adultsadults ““The features of the juvenile system The features of the juvenile system

which its proponents have asserted which its proponents have asserted are of unique benefit will not be are of unique benefit will not be impaired by constitutional impaired by constitutional domestication. For example, the domestication. For example, the commendable principles relating to commendable principles relating to the processing and treatment of the processing and treatment of juveniles separately from adults are no juveniles separately from adults are no way involved or affected by the way involved or affected by the procedural issues under discussion.” procedural issues under discussion.”

In re GaultIn re GaultConsequences of juvenile Consequences of juvenile

imprisonment imprisonment

““The boy is committed to an institution where he The boy is committed to an institution where he may be restrained of liberty for years. It is of no may be restrained of liberty for years. It is of no constitutional consequence –and of limited constitutional consequence –and of limited practical meaning—that the institution to which practical meaning—that the institution to which he is committed is called an industrial school. The he is committed is called an industrial school. The fact of the matter is that. . .an industrial school fact of the matter is that. . .an industrial school for juveniles is an institution of confinement in for juveniles is an institution of confinement in which the child is incarcerated... Instead of a which the child is incarcerated... Instead of a mother and father and sisters and brothers and mother and father and sisters and brothers and friends and classmates his world is peopled by friends and classmates his world is peopled by guards, custodians, state employees and guards, custodians, state employees and delinquents confined with him. . .” delinquents confined with him. . .”

In re Gault In re Gault Indigent DefenseIndigent Defense

Due process requires the essentials of due process Due process requires the essentials of due process and fair treatment for juvenile delinquency and fair treatment for juvenile delinquency proceedings. proceedings.

““Under our Constitution, the condition of being a Under our Constitution, the condition of being a boy does not justify a kangaroo court. The boy does not justify a kangaroo court. The traditional ideas of juvenile court procedure, traditional ideas of juvenile court procedure, indeed, contemplated that time would be available indeed, contemplated that time would be available and care would be used to establish precisely what and care would be used to establish precisely what the juvenile did and why he did it—was it a prank of the juvenile did and why he did it—was it a prank of adolescence or a brutal act threatening serious adolescence or a brutal act threatening serious consequences to himself or society unless consequences to himself or society unless corrected.”corrected.”

““The child requires the guiding hand of counsel at The child requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him.”every step in the proceedings against him.”

In re Winship In re Winship Proof beyond a reasonable doubt Proof beyond a reasonable doubt

12 year old boy stole $12 from a 12 year old boy stole $12 from a lockerlocker

NY Statute provided that guilt could NY Statute provided that guilt could be established by a preponderance be established by a preponderance of the evidence—not by reasonable of the evidence—not by reasonable doubt. doubt.

In re WinshipIn re WinshipWhy a reasonable doubt?Why a reasonable doubt?

““A society that values the good name and A society that values the good name and freedom of every individual should not freedom of every individual should not condemn a man for commission of a crime condemn a man for commission of a crime when there is reasonable doubt about his when there is reasonable doubt about his guilt.”guilt.”

““It is critical that the moral force of the It is critical that the moral force of the criminal law not be diluted by a standard criminal law not be diluted by a standard of proof that leaves people in doubt of proof that leaves people in doubt whether innocent men are being whether innocent men are being condemned.”condemned.”

In re WinshipIn re WinshipChildren are entitled to reasonable Children are entitled to reasonable

doubt standarddoubt standard ““Civil labels and good intention do not Civil labels and good intention do not

themselves obviate the need for criminal themselves obviate the need for criminal due process safe guards in juvenile due process safe guards in juvenile courts.”courts.”

““We conclude. . .that the observance of We conclude. . .that the observance of the standard of proof beyond a reasonable the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt will not compel states to abandon or doubt will not compel states to abandon or displace any of the substantive benefits of displace any of the substantive benefits of the juvenile process.” the juvenile process.”

McKeiver et al v. PennsylvaniaMcKeiver et al v. PennsylvaniaRight to a jury trial Right to a jury trial

Consolidated cases from PA and NC. Consolidated cases from PA and NC. Children adjudicated delinquent Children adjudicated delinquent during bench trial asserted their right during bench trial asserted their right to a jury trial. to a jury trial.

McKeiver et al v. PennsylvaniaMcKeiver et al v. Pennsylvania Jury trial is not a constitutional Jury trial is not a constitutional

requirement because: requirement because: 1)1) Prior Supreme Court precedent stopped Prior Supreme Court precedent stopped

short of ordering that all adult procedural short of ordering that all adult procedural safeguards' apply to juvenile safeguards' apply to juvenile proceedings; proceedings;

2)2) Jury trials will make juvenile proceedings Jury trials will make juvenile proceedings fully adversarial and will put an end to fully adversarial and will put an end to the “idealistic prospect of an intimate, the “idealistic prospect of an intimate, informal protective proceeding.”; informal protective proceeding.”;

3)3) It would place the juvenile squarely in It would place the juvenile squarely in the routine of the criminal process.the routine of the criminal process.

McKeiver et al v. PennsylvaniaMcKeiver et al v. Pennsylvania ““The juvenile court held high promise. We are The juvenile court held high promise. We are

reluctant to say that despite disappointments of reluctant to say that despite disappointments of grave dimensions it still does not hold great grave dimensions it still does not hold great promise and we are particularly reluctant to say promise and we are particularly reluctant to say that that the system cannot accomplish it’s that that the system cannot accomplish it’s rehabilitative goals…We are reluctant to disallow rehabilitative goals…We are reluctant to disallow the states to experiment further and to seek in the states to experiment further and to seek in new and different ways the elusive answers to the new and different ways the elusive answers to the problems of the young, and we feel that we would problems of the young, and we feel that we would be impeding that experimentation by imposing the be impeding that experimentation by imposing the jury trial. The states indeed must go forward. If, in jury trial. The states indeed must go forward. If, in its wisdom, any state feels the jury trial is desirable its wisdom, any state feels the jury trial is desirable in all cases or in certain kinds, there appears to be in all cases or in certain kinds, there appears to be no impediment to installing a system embracing no impediment to installing a system embracing that future. That, however, is the state’s privilege that future. That, however, is the state’s privilege and not its obligation.” and not its obligation.”

In re: Gault In re: Gault

““We conclude that the Due Process Clause We conclude that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that in respect of proceedings to determine in respect of proceedings to determine delinquency which may result in delinquency which may result in commitment to an institution in which the commitment to an institution in which the juvenile’s freedom in curtailed, the child juvenile’s freedom in curtailed, the child and his parents must be notified of the and his parents must be notified of the child’s right to be represented by counsel child’s right to be represented by counsel retained by them or if they are unable to retained by them or if they are unable to afford counsel, that counsel will be afford counsel, that counsel will be appointed to represent the child.” appointed to represent the child.”

In re GaultIn re GaultSelf-incriminationSelf-incrimination

““Juvenile proceedings to determine delinquency, which may Juvenile proceedings to determine delinquency, which may lead to commitment to a state institution, must be regarded lead to commitment to a state institution, must be regarded as criminal for the purposes of the privilege against self-as criminal for the purposes of the privilege against self-incrimination. To hold otherwise would be to disregard incrimination. To hold otherwise would be to disregard substance because of the feeble enticement of the civil substance because of the feeble enticement of the civil label of convenience which has been attached to juvenile label of convenience which has been attached to juvenile proceedings. Indeed, in over half of the states there is not proceedings. Indeed, in over half of the states there is not even assurance that the juvenile will be kept in separate even assurance that the juvenile will be kept in separate institutions apart from adult criminals…For this purpose, at institutions apart from adult criminals…For this purpose, at least, commitment is a deprivation of liberty. It is least, commitment is a deprivation of liberty. It is incarceration against one’s will, whether it is called criminal incarceration against one’s will, whether it is called criminal or civil. And our Constitution guarantees that no person or civil. And our Constitution guarantees that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself when he shall be compelled to be a witness against himself when he is threatened with the deprivation of his liberty—a is threatened with the deprivation of his liberty—a command which this Court has broadly applied and command which this Court has broadly applied and generously implemented in accordance with the teaching of generously implemented in accordance with the teaching of the history of the privilege and its great office in mankind’s the history of the privilege and its great office in mankind’s battle for freedom.” battle for freedom.”

Kent v. United StatesKent v. United StatesProcedural Protections for TransferProcedural Protections for Transfer

16 year old accused or burglary, robbery and rape was 16 year old accused or burglary, robbery and rape was waived into the adult system after a pro forma hearing. waived into the adult system after a pro forma hearing.

““In these circumstances, considering particularly that In these circumstances, considering particularly that decision as to waiver of jurisdiction and transfer of the decision as to waiver of jurisdiction and transfer of the matter to the District Court was potentially as important to matter to the District Court was potentially as important to petitioner as the difference between five years' petitioner as the difference between five years' confinement and a death sentence, we conclude that, as a confinement and a death sentence, we conclude that, as a condition to a valid waiver order, petitioner was entitled to condition to a valid waiver order, petitioner was entitled to a hearing, including access by his counsel to the social a hearing, including access by his counsel to the social records and probation or similar reports which presumably records and probation or similar reports which presumably are considered by the court, and to a statement of reasons are considered by the court, and to a statement of reasons for the Juvenile Court's decision. We believe that this result for the Juvenile Court's decision. We believe that this result is required by the statute read in the context of is required by the statute read in the context of constitutional principles relating to due process and the constitutional principles relating to due process and the assistance of counsel.” assistance of counsel.”

Roper v. SimmonsRoper v. SimmonsOutlawed the Juvenile Death Penalty Outlawed the Juvenile Death Penalty

“categorically less culpable“categorically less culpable””

1.1. National consensusNational consensus. The evidence of national consensus . The evidence of national consensus against the death penalty for juveniles was similar, and in some against the death penalty for juveniles was similar, and in some respects parallel, to the evidence held sufficient in respects parallel, to the evidence held sufficient in Atkins v Virginia -in which the United States Supreme Court had -in which the United States Supreme Court had held that the execution of offenders who were mentally retarded held that the execution of offenders who were mentally retarded violated the Eighth Amendment--to demonstrate a national violated the Eighth Amendment--to demonstrate a national consensus against the death penalty for the mentally retarded, consensus against the death penalty for the mentally retarded, for: for:

2.2. Congressional ActionCongressional Action. When enacting the Federal Death . When enacting the Federal Death Penalty Act (18 U.S.C.S. § 3591) in 1994, Congress had Penalty Act (18 U.S.C.S. § 3591) in 1994, Congress had determined that the death penalty should not extend to juveniles. determined that the death penalty should not extend to juveniles.

3.3. Less culpableLess culpable. Society presently views juveniles as . Society presently views juveniles as categorically less culpablecategorically less culpable than the average criminal. than the average criminal.

Roper v. SimmonsRoper v. Simmons

5.5. Children do not commit the worst crimesChildren do not commit the worst crimes. General maturity-related . General maturity-related differences between juveniles under 18 and adults demonstrated that juvenile differences between juveniles under 18 and adults demonstrated that juvenile offenders could not with reliability be classified among the worst offenders. offenders could not with reliability be classified among the worst offenders.

6.6. Precedent.Precedent. Same justifications for outlawing death for children under age 16, Same justifications for outlawing death for children under age 16, applies to all children under age 18. applies to all children under age 18.

7.7. No deterrence because of diminished culpabilityNo deterrence because of diminished culpability. Once the diminished . Once the diminished culpability of juveniles was recognized, it was evident that the penological culpability of juveniles was recognized, it was evident that the penological justifications (restitution and deterrence) for the death penalty applied to justifications (restitution and deterrence) for the death penalty applied to juveniles with lesser force than to adults. The differences between juvenile and juveniles with lesser force than to adults. The differences between juvenile and adult offenders were too marked and too well understood to risk allowing a adult offenders were too marked and too well understood to risk allowing a youthful person to receive the death penalty despite insufficient culpability. youthful person to receive the death penalty despite insufficient culpability.

8.8. Society draws the line at 18Society draws the line at 18. The age of 18 was the point where, for many . The age of 18 was the point where, for many purposes, society drew the line between childhood and adulthood. purposes, society drew the line between childhood and adulthood.

9.9. International Human RightsInternational Human Rights. The United States was the only country in the . The United States was the only country in the world that continued to give official sanction to the juvenile death penalty.world that continued to give official sanction to the juvenile death penalty.

Graham v. Florida Graham v. Florida A child who committed a non-homicide offense was sentenced to A child who committed a non-homicide offense was sentenced to

life without parole. The court found this sentence unconstitutional life without parole. The court found this sentence unconstitutional for the following reasons:for the following reasons:

Proportional punishmentProportional punishment. Embodied in the cruel and unusual . Embodied in the cruel and unusual punishments ban is the “precept . . . that punishment for crime punishments ban is the “precept . . . that punishment for crime should be graduated and proportioned to [the] offense.” should be graduated and proportioned to [the] offense.”

Rarity of the sentenceRarity of the sentence. An examination of actual sentencing . An examination of actual sentencing practices in those jurisdictions that permit life without parole for practices in those jurisdictions that permit life without parole for juvenile nonhomicide offenders, discloses a consensus against the juvenile nonhomicide offenders, discloses a consensus against the sentence. Nationwide,  there are only 123 juvenile offenders sentence. Nationwide,  there are only 123 juvenile offenders serving life without parole sentences for nonhomicide crimes. serving life without parole sentences for nonhomicide crimes. Because 77 of those offenders are serving sentences imposed in Because 77 of those offenders are serving sentences imposed in Florida and the other 46 are imprisoned in just 10 States, it Florida and the other 46 are imprisoned in just 10 States, it appears that only 11 jurisdictions nationwide in fact impose life appears that only 11 jurisdictions nationwide in fact impose life without parole sentences on juvenile nonhomicide offenders, while without parole sentences on juvenile nonhomicide offenders, while 26 States, the District of Columbia, and the Federal Government 26 States, the District of Columbia, and the Federal Government do not impose them despite apparent statutory authorization. do not impose them despite apparent statutory authorization.

Graham v. Florida Graham v. Florida Limited Culpability of youthLimited Culpability of youth. The inadequacy of . The inadequacy of

penological theory to justify life without parole sentences penological theory to justify life without parole sentences for juvenile nonhomicide offenders, the limited culpability of for juvenile nonhomicide offenders, the limited culpability of such offenders, and the severity of these sentences all lead such offenders, and the severity of these sentences all lead the Court to conclude that the sentencing practice at issue the Court to conclude that the sentencing practice at issue is cruel and unusual. is cruel and unusual.

International Human RightsInternational Human Rights. Additional support for the . Additional support for the Court's conclusion lies in the fact that the sentencing Court's conclusion lies in the fact that the sentencing practice at issue has been rejected the world over: The practice at issue has been rejected the world over: The  United States is the only Nation that imposes this type of  United States is the only Nation that imposes this type of sentence. While the judgments of other nations and the sentence. While the judgments of other nations and the international community are not dispositive as to the international community are not dispositive as to the meaning of the Eighth Amendment, the Court has looked meaning of the Eighth Amendment, the Court has looked abroad to support its independent conclusion that a abroad to support its independent conclusion that a particular punishment is cruel and unusual..particular punishment is cruel and unusual..