Rights of Juveniles in Regard to Criminal

¶ … rights of juveniles in regard to criminal proceedings have been highly debated for a number of years. It is an issue that continues to be debated and the likelihood is that it will remain so. Needless to say, juveniles charged with criminal offenses do not have the same constitutional rights as those afforded adults facing similar charges. In fact, it is has been only in the past several decades that juveniles had any due process rights at all. Beginning in the mid-1960s, the courts began recognizing the need for providing juveniles with some of the same rights given to adults but the granting of these rights came about only after a shift in policy by the courts.

Traditionally, juveniles that became involved in criminal behavior were not charged with violating a criminal statute. Instead, the states set up special courts, usually identified as juvenile courts that handled juveniles as being involved in a civil action as opposed to a criminal one. This treatment resulted in juveniles being considered as delinquent and not as a criminal. This approach was considered to be more beneficial for the juvenile and avoided the juvenile being labeled as a criminal. The approach grew out of the concept that society had a duty to take care of its younger members and that isolating juveniles from the general criminal environment was a way of providing them with additional protections.

Before considering what constitutional rights juveniles might have in criminal proceedings, or more properly, in delinquency proceedings arising from alleged criminal activity, it must be pointed out that all juvenile proceedings are governed by state statutes and not federal ones. This means that the rights granted to juveniles differ from state to state. Some states afford juveniles more rights than others but there are several rights that have been applied to all the states through the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The first right that has been applied to all juvenile proceedings is that the police must have probable cause to search and arrest a minor. This requirement applies only to searches initiated by the police and to situations where the juvenile is suspected of violating a criminal statute. Because of the nature of special relationships that certain individuals, such as teachers, have with juveniles that place them in a quasi-parental position such individuals may conduct searches of juveniles with only a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing (Jenkins, 2002). This right to search in such situations also allows such individuals to detain the juvenile in order to conduct the search.

As juvenile proceedings began to be more formalized the courts began to recognize that juveniles should be afforded the right to counsel in such proceedings. The right to counsel was officially extended to all juveniles by the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark case of In re Gault (In re Gault, 1967)in 1967. Since that decision, all juveniles have the right to an attorney in all juvenile proceedings and to have appointed counsel in the event that the juvenile, of his or her family, cannot afford to retain one on his or her own. Gault also extended to juveniles the right to have the delinquency charges read in open court.

An additional right that was extended to juveniles facing delinquency charges was the right to assert the privilege of not being forced to testify against oneself (Holtz, 1973). Prior to the granting of this right, juveniles were expected to answer questions propounded by the court or the prosecutor in regard to any charges. The granting of this right created a profound change in the way that juvenile proceedings were conducted but extended to juveniles one of the basic rights provided to adults.