Introduction
The state is inherently considered the guardian of all vulnerable populations, including children. According to the official definition at the federal level and in most states, a juvenile is an individual under the age of 18 and, for that reason, cannot be held entirely criminally responsible. However, there has been an evolution in the judicial system from parens patriae to the due process in dealing with crimes committed by juveniles. This transition is legitimate and lawful, contributing to reducing the opportunities for juveniles to commit crimes and avoid punishment.
System Evolution
The global concept of parens patriae has a long history and symbolizes the state’s concern for its citizens. Basically, the categories of people who fall under this term include the elderly, children, and people with disabilities or mental problems. The state’s protection and responsibility lie in monitoring the parents or guardians of such vulnerable populations and, in case of inadequacy, providing the necessary assistance (Truex 1559). Undoubtedly, such activities are an essential part of the existence of modern society and cannot be overemphasized. However, the doctrine of parens patriae is also not always correctly interpreted in legal proceedings, and some court decisions can be diametrically opposed.
The notion of due legal process, in turn, implies the maturity and autonomy of the person involved in the due process. One of the main factors is the responsibility for one’s behavior, actions, and statements, which one must give an account of and bear. Thus, on this side of the issue, there are all sorts of criticism about applying the due process to juveniles because of their inability to account for their own actions, regardless of the misdeeds committed.
The evolution of the juvenile justice system itself has taken place over many years and continues to this day. Moreover, in today’s environment, there is the possibility of a partial reversal of the process. Constitutional and human rights are of great importance in society today. Many activists are fighting to convey the complete treatment of juvenile offenders as children, regardless of the severity of their crimes. It is worth noting since not all cases could be characterized as unequivocally correctly resolved in the evolutionary process.
US Supreme Court Decisions That Brought About the Evolution
The first of the cases is Kent’s precedent, in which a juvenile was convicted in an adult legal proceeding. This case occurred in 1966 when 16-year-old Morris Kent was charged with three robberies, several thefts, and two rapes (Cunningham 407). The court’s eventual decision to sentence him to a long term of imprisonment seemed unfair to many because of the lack of attention in parsing the case file and the lack of legal procedure. The rights of the Juvenal defendant were not fully respected, which was blamed on the parens patriae philosophy with its potential for arbitrariness and power over citizens.
The court’s most famous decision was the decision to grant full procedural rights to an adult juvenile. It came out of Gault, 387 US 1 in 1967 (Cunningham 406). The new rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments were the rights to confront witnesses, not to testify against himself, the assistance of counsel, and notice of charges. Accordingly, this decision was vital in a series of similar changes.
An equally famous ruling suggested that if the defendant was a minor, he could not be found in violation if the state could still have a reasonable doubt about it. Related to Winship case number 397 US 358, this ruling was made in 1970 (Blitzman 50). According to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, due process was made mandatory for juveniles in lieu of a standard in the preponderance of the evidence.
There have been several landmark rulings subsequently related to this topic. For example, in 1971, 403 US 528, the Supreme Court ruled that criminal cases involving accused juveniles were not entitled to a jury trial, as stated in the Sixth Amendment. In 1975, 421 US 519 reaffirmed the Fifth Amendment right to no double prosecution for the same crime (Blitzman 60). This fact brought the due process closer to the actual adult.
In a further landmark decision, a death penalty conviction for crimes committed by a juvenile defendant was declared unconstitutional. Such a decision influenced rule changes in nearly half of the states and was passed in 2005 (Blitzman 53). It should be noted that there were precedents for such convictions prior to its adoption, one of the most famous occurring in 1989 in the Stanford case.
Juveniles and Drug Related Behaviors
In the case of drug offenses, the doctrine of parens patriae is most relevant. The reason for this is the care and responsibility of the state under which potentially problematic children should fall (Truex 1561). The involvement in drugs or selling drugs is most often related to problems with upbringing, absence of parents, or their bad example. Therefore, to minimize the number of crimes and work for the courts, preventive measures should be taken to eliminate such opportunities.
In the case of crimes already committed, however, responsibility must be taken according to the due process and code. Even recognizing the state’s fault for the lack of control that has provoked such problems, curing or correcting drug addicts is often impossible. Especially, if the crime is related not only to consumption, but to distribution of drugs, the severity of measures should not differ from that of adults.
Proposed Reforms of the System
Based on the material studied, it is possible to propose one fundamental reform to avoid further disparities. As is known, most boys are already fully aware of their actions from the age of 14-16, and girls from 12-14. This data provides the danger of taking advantage of their status when committing crimes and hoping for a subsequent lack of punishment. Lowering the juvenile age at the federal level would solve this problem. The reason for this is that cruelty or criminal disobedience cannot be justified solely on the basis of age.
By lowering the barrier to 14 years of age, for example, there is the possibility of unambiguous legalization of the due process based on age. Thus, all crimes committed by people over 14 would be subject to the same adult due process with all rights and penalties. Under the age of 14, however, it is proposed to maximize the responsibility of guardians or the state to control juveniles. Certainly, exceptions are allowed based on the results of the checks of the accused by an independent committee of psychologists.
Conclusion
The process of evolution of the juvenile court system is indeed a legitimate and natural outcome of the development of society and the state. Although there are rough edges and flaws, the system is progressing to improve its effectiveness and impartiality. Juvenile justice is a rather specific and ambiguous process that requires the utmost attention and caution. Moreover, human rights must be obeyed at all costs. Young citizens are the future of the country, and they must comprehend and experience the fact that respect for their rights and the rights of others is predominant.
Works Cited
Blitzman, Jay D. “Gault’s Promise Revisited: The Search for Due Process.” Juvenile & Family Court Journal, vol. 69, no. 2, 2018, pp. 49–77, Web.
Mowry, Emily R. “When Big Brother Becomes ‘Big Father’: Examining the Continued Use of Parens Patriae in State Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings.” Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present), vol. 124, no. 2, 2019, p. 499, Web.
Truex, Quentin. “Anne M. Corbin: Dilemma of Duties: The Conflicted Role of Juvenile Defenders” Journal of Youth and Adolescence, vol. 49, no. 7, 2020, pp. 1558–1561, Web.