Political Science

Re Gault was one of the landmark rulings in the United States.  It was an important ruling that shaped juvenile justice system. The ruling reinforced the importance of due process in handling juvenile related cases. The ruling also showed that minors have the right to the represented by an attorney like other people.  The court agreed that the constitutional guarantee of due process is applicable to juveniles who are charged as delinquent (Scott 557). This was an important ruling that changed the life of average American juveniles who find themselves accused of delinquency.

Case summary and rulings
Gerald Francis Gault was fifteen years old when he was taken to custody for alleged obscene call.  It was on 8th June 1964 when Gault was take into custody without parental notification after their neighbor, Ora Cook, complained of having received indecent telephone call, which according to Gault, was made by his friend (Great Supreme Court Cases). When Gault parent returned home found their son missing, they traced him to County Childrens Detention Home but they were denied a chance to talk to him.

The next morning, Judge McGhee from Superior Court presided over the preliminary hearing but did not deliver any verdict on the case.  Gault was kept in custody for some few more days but later released without an explanation.  On June 15th, juvenile judge McGhee delivered his verdict on the case arguing that Gault was a delinquent child and had to be confined until he reached 21 years (Great Supreme Court Cases). Surprisingly, the accuser, Ora Cook, did not attend both hearing and the judge claimed that she did not have to be present. Since there were no witnesses sworn in the court and no transcript of hearing, the ruling was followed by contents particularly from Gualts parent who disagreed with the judge that Gault had admitted having made the indecent call.

At the time, Arizona laws did not provide for juvenile appeal and hence the case was petitioned at the Supreme Court for habeas corpus writ. However, Arizona Supreme Court referred the case back to McGhee. The court again dismissed the appeal for habeas corpus and the case was referred to state Supreme Court based on the fact that Arizona Juvenile Code could be considered unconstitutional and that Gila County Juvenile Courts decision was a denial of the due process (Great Supreme Court Cases). This was based on the fact that the juvenile code did not require parental notification and did not allow for appeal.  In the County Court decision, the court did not give notification of the charges against Gault. It did not inform Gault of his right to counsel, right to defend himself in front of his accuser, and the right to remain silent.  The court action did not provide for any record of the hearing proceedings.

After review of the appeal present on the above facts, the Arizona Supreme court also dismissed the habeas corpus writ. The court upheld the constitutionality of the court proceedings in agreement that it had followed the due process (Koroknay-Palicz).  The court also ruled that the country court did not in any way violate the due process.  Hence, the case was appealed in United States Supreme Court.

United States Supreme Court decision however dismissed the ruling from the Arizona state courts. In a close 8-1 decision, the court asserted that the court commitment of the juvenile to State Industrial School violated his rights as provided in Fourteenth Amendments (Great Supreme Court Cases).  According to the court ruling, this was a violation of the juvenile rights since he had been denied the right to be represented by an attorney as provided in the 14th Amendment. Also, the court argued that the accused had not been notified of his the charges brought against him and also he had not been informed of their right against self-incrimination (Great Supreme Court Cases). He was also not given the right to have an opportunity to face his accuser which would have given him a chance to defend himself. Either, he had not been given the right to appeal the sentences delivered upon him in a higher court. The only judge who voted against the rest argued that the main purpose for institution of juvenile court was for mere correction not punishment and hence the constitutional procedural safeguards commonly used in criminal trials did not need to be applied in juvenile cases.

Reflection
This case became a landmark ruling in the United States because it changed the due process in prosecution of juveniles. The ruling asserted the right of juvenile to be taken through a due process of law like other people. In upholding the ruling the Supreme Court reinforced the equality of American people regardless of their age in face of criminal justice system.

The ruling had short and long term effects on American culture and democracy. The case ruling asserted the importance of treating juveniles and equal citizens who had rights like the rest of the population. The case was important in advancing democratic rights to juvenile (Kowalski 25). In short and long term, it reinforced the importance of duel process of law for all.  This decision also affected the average American in their daily life in different ways. The decision guarantees all Americans the right to be protected by the law regardless of their age. After the court ruling, average Americans feel more secure in the face of law since they are assured of protection from violation of their rights in a due process of law.