Warren Court and Social Justice

Ashraya Ananthanarayanan

Final Paper LSTU

The Humanity in the Justice System: An Analysis of Juvenile Cases in the Warren Court

The years between 1953 and 1969 were regarded as some of the most important ones in the entirety of time period encapsulating the existence of the judicial system as it is known today. It is in this time period that Chief Justice Earl Warren was able to take his position within the Supreme Court of the United States. There were a plethora of vital decisions made regarding civil liberties in this time period. Some of the most impactful decisions, that still hold weight in the present day, were made between these years, by the members of the Warren Court. Amongst the multitude of groups who were aided in great levels by the Warren Court’s decisions, though, juveniles were, perhaps, amongst the most underrepresented groups at the time. With the decisions that Chief Justice Earl Warren’s court passed, the Juvenile Court is no longer, as was described at a time, a “court of kangaroos” (“United States Supreme Court Juvenile Justice Jurisprudence” ). Rather, it is a place where individuals can seek just decisions to be made regarding their future. The Warren Court is, thus, a tremendously influential factor within the juvenile judicial system, and its effects stretch to the present day, where they aid in determining decisions of cases that have occurred decades later.

Three of the landmark cases surrounding this time period that made decisions that still resound in relevance today included In re Gault (1967), Kent v. United States (1966), and In re Winship (1970). Each of these cases debated the matter of due process as it applied to the Juvenile Court. The time period in which the Warren Court held precedence was one which saw numerous cases, each of which handled various areas within the judicial system. Specifically within the area of juvenile cases, the court satisfied its essential purpose of expanding upon social rights and liberties present for the citizenry. One such case which saw the progressiveness of attitudes towards the concept of assigning rights and liberties was that of In re Gault (1967), where the essential purpose of the case was to establish that juvenile rights are quite similar to the rights that adults would hold in legal presence. To be more specific, this case established that juveniles would be allocated the rights that adults tried in the court would have, including the right to representation, the right to remain silent, and similar inclusions normally provisioned for any adult (“United States Supreme Court Juvenile Justice Jurisprudence” ). In order to fully comprehend the social impact that the case had, however, it is essential that one first pays close attention to the matter of the context behind the case.

As the case states, a fifteen year old boy from Arizona, Gerald Gault, “was taken into custody as the result of a complaint that he had made lewd telephone calls” (“In re Gault”). In and of itself, the cultural context behind this case, then, becomes evident. There is a matter at hand being discussed of maintaining public decency, as Gerald’s ability to do so has been questioned by an accusation regarding a possible previous action of his. In order to follow through the court proceedings, it was essential that the juvenile court first hear of his case. However, at the point of discussion surrounding his case, it was brought to light that Gerald was not necessarily entirely assured his constitutional rights, since he was being treated as a juvenile, as opposed to an adult. As a result of this, then, a number of rights were not ascribed to him, which, constitutionally and rightfully, would need to be given to him for him to be able to be party to the concept of due process. Specifically, the rights in question were: right to an attorney, the right to remain silent, the right to notice of the charges, and the right to a full hearing on the merits of the case. Each of these functioned as crucial tenets of the judicial system, ensuring that the power of the court would be balanced with the purpose of its essential creation—promulgating just decisions in the face of moral dilemmas.

As a result of his actions, the juvenile court judge determined that Gerald was to attend the State Industrial School as a juvenile delinquent (“In re Gault”). This would continue until his reaching of a major age. However, this punishment was far more than would be expected for the “crime” he had supposedly committed, had it been an adult being tried for the same actions. Rather than facing years of delinquent status, Gerald would have been subject to a nominal fine or a brief jail term, as opposed to consistent years of remedy. As the family of the boy, for obvious reasons, did not quite feel in sympathy with the decisions being arrived at surrounding their son’s future, they expressed their concern to higher levels of courts, and sought justice through their appeals. Nonetheless, the doors were shut at each avenue that they approached, leading them to approach none other than the United States Supreme Court. Specifically within the appeal, the central claim was that the process being implemented was tremendously unconstitutional. Furthermore, the family felt as though the state was causing their family to suffer, emotionally, as well as through means of discrimination against the boy because of the factor of his age.

There were harsh words used by the United States Supreme Court to describe the atrocity of the lack of rights being present for the youth of the nation. For instance, ‘Justice Fortas wrote, “The condition of being a boy does not justify a kangaroo court”’ (“United States Supreme Court Juvenile Justice Jurisprudence” ). At the time of the case’s presence at the levels of the state courts, there was already a drive being pushed for social progress and ramifications for the strict and unfair policies implemented, that may have been perceived as unconstitutional. Therefore, the questioning of the concept of due process led to the granting of certiorari to discuss the issue at hand. The words of Justice Abe Fortas serve as evidentiary proof with regards to the matter of social and judicial process being polished in order to work towards an overarching equitable system, which would refrain from discriminating based on any number of variables involved, including age, race, class, gender, etc., although certain of those social divisions would take a considerable amount of more time to be entirely accepted and worked towards.

Specifically discussing the matter of age, however, the court was able to, in this case, observe that entering discriminatory practices as such would counter the essential purpose of the establishment of the court: to ensure a brighter future for the youth, and to maintain a social balance of fairness and regulation. Amongst the plethora of rights being implemented in greater scales through the discussion of this court case, one of the primary privileges to be debated was that of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. Through the tenets of the Constitution, no individual should ever be forced into consensus or denial of a crime of which he/she has been accused. However, there are a multitude of instances where manipulation of words can come into play, which can cause an individual to engage in such a practice, despite not aiming to do so. Within the concept of self-incrimination, this case dealt with the matter of the right to remain silent, as well. It was brought to the forefront that the juvenile may have been unaware of his ability to remain silent, and that he was not given the same rights and liberties description that any adult would have been given in his place. The enumeration of his rights and abilities at the time of an accusation would be absolutely necessary for any sort of admission of crime to be accepted within the court. Without such process, it could be perceived as having extracted the admission, rather than simply receiving it. Therefore, the admission of any juvenile to a certain accusation without the due process being properly executed, as it would for any other member of society, is simply remarked as being unacceptable within the eyes of the court, as it would most certainly violate constitutionally guaranteed rights for all citizens.

Within the present day’s social context, Gerald’s case can hold a tremendous amount of weight. The ability for Gerald to admit anything at his will allows for him to be able to stand his ground in the face of a daunting legal environment. As a juvenile, fear based tactics could essentially cause him to reveal any matter, whether his involvement or statements are true or false. Therefore, it would be unconstitutional to provision rights such that certain groups, in this case being those have become majors, are allowed the full extent of rights, while juveniles are only allowed the extent of the punishments. The concept of the Miranda rights, another tremendous case for historical and present contextual study, allows for one to gain further insight into this matter, as well. As within those rights, it is necessary to be able to ascertain that an individual has complete awareness of their options and expected actions in the presence of any sort of legal interaction, since all matters are of critical evidence to support one stance over another. Furthering this, the juvenile cases speak to the start of the acceptance, socially, of equality for all within the citizenry of the United States. However, there are other juvenile cases that do quite well with exemplifying the purpose of the Warren Court, as well, seeing as they function as entities that each provision constitutional privileges to the juveniles, who may, previously, not have been allocated such rights.

Further cases which can be explored to determine the impact of the Warren Court upon juvenile decisions include one key case: Kent v. United States (1966). This specific case echoes largely with the aforementioned case, In re Gault (1967). The purpose of this case was to ensure that the accused juvenile could be tried with the appropriate rights that would be assigned to an adult, as well. However, the social context here is slightly different, seeing as the matter of discussion in this specific instance is an accusation of housebreaking, robbery, and rape (“Kent v. United States”). At the age of sixteen, an individual was accused of having committed all of these crimes, and, was therefore, charged accordingly. Since the courts jurisdictions cannot be interfered with unless precedence is waived, the accused was held under the “exclusive jurisdiction of the District of Columbia Juvenile Court” (“Kent v. United States”). Since this individual held prior offenses, as well, there was indubitable social disquiet surrounding the subject of his potential innocence, despite his young age. Through the proceedings of the court, the essential decision to be arrived at concerned the following: the ability for the court to waive jurisdiction over a case without conducting due process.

As such, the arrival of decision was also that it would be absolutely necessary to conduct due process for individuals having their cases moved to a higher court. In essence, then, the question being posed was that of the ability to exercise parens patriae power. Roughly translated, this right allows for the court to act as the “legal protector of citizens unable to protect themselves” (“Parens patriae”). Therefore, minor individuals, or juveniles, would be considered to be part of this category. Acting as the guardian figures in the legal context, the debate surrounded the matter of whether the court was to have unlimited capacity to purpose this power or not. The overarching decision was made, that, the court does not have the ability to act independently in this fashion, without regard to juvenile freedoms, rights, and liberties. Specifically, it was stated that the juvenile court “is not entitled to act with ‘procedural arbitrariness’” (“United States Supreme Court Juvenile Justice Jurisprudence”). In a similar manner to that covered within In re Gault (1967), the juvenile would be permitted due process, so that they may be allocated the rights that are constitutionally guaranteed.

The situation presented in which Kent v. United States (1966) takes place is quite intriguing to study, as a social topic independent of other factors. The individual being discussed, the juvenile of sixteen years, had been a previous offender, had been held responsible for various forms of social misconduct prior, and there had been judicial involvement to those terms. In this instance, however, the severity of the charges increased, and the methods of perception of the Juvenile Court of his actions increased in severity, accordingly. The accused, or, in this case, the petitioner, was one who faced levels of jurisdiction ranging from the district court to the Supreme Court. The decision made by the district court rested upon the concept of parens patriae power. Therefore, it was determined by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the Juvenile Court’s denial of the petitioner’s waiver was invalid, on the basis of possibly not being in compliance with the necessitated due process. At the time of the discussion growing surrounding the topic, the petitioner, himself, was over the age of 21. Therefore, he was not to be under the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court any longer. In order to make further decisions, the district court would be necessitated to conduct a hearing, along with complete due process, in order to fulfill the legal and constitutional requirements of appropriate and just action (“Kent v. United States”).

Further opinions generated with regards to the matter have been varied in their decisions. There have been certain opinions that have stated that the juvenile individual should have been appropriately given the due process at the time by the district court, in and of itself, in order to avoid such further debate, to begin with. There are, however, opinions which maintain that the conductions of the court were quite in order and in compliance with the expectations of the functionalities to be satisfied by the Juvenile Court, for any case under its jurisdiction. The question then turns to the matter of the manner in which the Warren Court handled the situation, and the perspective shown from that point of the judicial system. As it was held, the majority opinion was that the individual, being acquitted on his rape charges on account of insanity, was to be given due process in a manner which he was denied. There is further evidentiary proof that the individual may have not been in his right senses while conducting the activities for which he had been charged. On account of this, it became increasingly more important to have the appropriate representation and analysis of the events of the charges to be provided and conducted. However, upon request of such assistance, or upon denial of acceptance of charges because of a lack of such provision, the Juvenile Court essentially violated the due process to be provided to the accused.

It is further stated that, “In the case of adults, arraignment before a magistrate for determination of probable cause and advice to the arrested person as to his rights, etc., are provided by law and are regarded as fundamental” (“Kent v. United States”). Therefore, the matter returns to the discussion of the fundamental and constitutionally guaranteed rights. If one is truly guaranteed the rights assured by the Constitution, in a non biased and nondiscriminatory manner, any factors leading to bias, including age, race, and gender, are not be considered as pertinent. In this instance, the age of the individual may very well have remained as the primary cause for his lack of receiving the appropriate aid he was entitled to. The accused, in this particular instance, did not resist the charges, in that he did not deny his involvement in the mentioned activities. However, due process would require that he be given the resources to defend himself abundantly, so that his counsel would be able to advocate, as was later advocated, that “if petitioner were given adequate treatment in a hospital under the aegis of the Juvenile Court, he would be a suitable subject for rehabilitation” (“Kent v. United States”).

The social impacts of such cases are most to be observed after the fact. From a purely social standpoint, the actions and conductions of the accused may raise skewed viewpoints with regards to his right to representation and fair trial. In addition, with consideration of the past occurrences in which he had been an offender, there would be certain discomfort with his receipt of judicial aid. However, from a judicial perspective, there is a necessity to ensure that there are no dangerous precedents set. If, in this instance, the matter of due process had not been brought to the forefront as a matter worthy of discussion and ramification, there would be no potential for future cases, such as In re Gault (1967) to result in fair decisions, because similar practices would be applied. The Warren Court, however, was able to ensure that future social and judicial processes would be well accommodated for, by determining in a 5–4 vote that there was not sufficient investigation prior to the arrival of the decision regarding Kent’s waiver of jurisdiction. Allowing him to be tried as an adult necessitated that he be given the legal aids provided to adult accused individuals, as well. However, under the concept of parens patriae, he was denied this, and would have, quite possibly, led to the denial of appropriate judicial assistance to any such further occurrences of cases, including those outside of the time period of the Warren Court.

The third case worthy of discussion is one decided upon by the Burger Court, directly following Warren’s stepping down from the judicial posting. However, this court’s influence in this matter was greatly influenced by the decisions afore made by the Warren Court, especially in the case In re Gault (1967). Samuel Winship, age twelve, was arrested for breaking in and robbing a woman. In terms of the legal equivalency of the matter, Winship’s case was handled as a juvenile, but would have been considered as a larceny, had the conduction been by an adult (“In re Winship”). The lower courts specifically mentioned this matter of the legal misconduct definition being equivalent to that of larceny to stress the severity of the actions of the young boy. However, the Supreme Court held a different viewpoint on the matter. As it was handled, the matter of Samuel approached the point where it was a slight change of words which would have determined his fate. The essential decision was made with regard given to the difference between the “preponderance of the evidence” and “beyond a reasonable doubt”, both of which happen to be perfectly acceptable legal terms, although applicable in different situations (“United States Supreme Court Juvenile Justice Jurisprudence”).

The Supreme Court’s perspective acknowledged that, if Samuel were to be tried as an adult, there would be no discrimination in the decisions being made against or for him. He would be subject to the same due process as an adult in his position, accused of larceny, would be. Furthermore, this would necessitate that there be a matter of certainly reasonable doubt that would ensure that Samuel Winship was the one to commit the act he was accused of. Having indicative evidence of his possible involvement would not be sufficient, without evidence proving his involvement, to place any sort of constraint upon his constitutionally guaranteed liberty and freedom. The previous court case of In re Gault (1967) addressed the matter of necessitating utmost regard to the accused’s protection, as well, without interference of social labels or processes. Within that case, seeing as Gerald Gault had been accused of being a social nuisance, and was assured his due process and representation, it is indubitable that similar concepts would be necessitated to be applied in this instance. The Supreme Court, as a result of the presented circumstances, stated that “civil labels and good intentions do not themselves obviate the need for criminal due process safeguards in juvenile courts” (“United States Supreme Court Juvenile Justice Jurisprudence” ). Quite justifiably, there was a significant amount of dissonance surrounding the matter of the weight of the evidence, considering the application of the age of Winship, as opposed to the crime he had committed.

The lower courts held that Samuel was guilty because of reasonable doubt. This being said, there was also an acknowledgment of the Family Court that the evidence “did not establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” (“In re Winship”). As a result, it was assumed that the due process would be terribly violated if Samuel were to not be treated as any adult in this situation would be. Considering the severity of the crime, without sufficient explanation to be assigned to the matter that the evidence against him did not incriminate him, it would be impractical and unfair to imprison him for a crime potentially just arising from misconstrued facts. When debating, thus, the matter of whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause was violated or not, the majority of the weight assigned was given to the discussion surrounding the ability of the crime committed by Winship to be equated to a crime of equal magnitude and impact conducted by an adult. The majority decision of the Supreme Court upon the matter was in the ratio of 5—3, therefore asserting that there was a significant amount of consensus to ensure that there would be judicial rights and support available for Samuel, and that his liberty would not be put under question without the sufficient investigation to arrive at a conclusion based on well founded evidence.

The social impact of this case was tremendously similar to that of the impacts of the prior Warren Court decided cases from the earlier part of the decade. The matter of the assurance of rights for all accused, especially the rights within the concept of due process, is susceptible to a considerable bit of social discrepancy. Within social contexts, there are variable factors that may cause the social environment to react negatively towards the accused without regard to the judicial perspective on the matter. Speaking from a point of view of the aspect of justice, the discussion returns, once again, to that of setting precedents for further cases. The earlier case of Kent v. United States (1966), for instance, although socially tremendously volatile, was a case in which the concept of judicial due process for juveniles was brought to light. From that point onwards, each following case considering juvenile cases built upon the existing and created foundation that had been established by the earlier passed decisions by the Supreme Court. The resounding effect that the one case then had resulted into a domino effect of being able to stand as an assurance for all accused juveniles that they would receive the full investigation and full support of the justice system in order to be accorded the best possible chance they had in the matter of their future.

This being said, it is indisputable that certain actions on the parts of the accused individuals may have led to their social standing to be questioned, resulting in further public discomfort with the decisions of the Warren Court. As a result, the juvenile cases discussed within the tenets of the Warren Court, although few in number, were tremendously impactful, because of their establishment as the first discussions of their type. Whether the matter was surrounding that of the decision being held with accordance to the due processes guaranteed by the Constitution to each and every citizen, in a nondiscriminatory fashion, or that of deciding whether the courts acted within their jurisdiction or not, the ability of the Supreme Court to hold their stance that justice was deserved by each individual who was impacted by these cases was admirable, to say the least.

The Warren Court was held in high esteem for the expansion of civil liberties that it was credited for. There was further discussion surrounding the potential for civil rights to be expanded upon in a socially consuming manner, an impact which essentially caused a movement as big as the Civil Rights Movement. The impact of the Warren Court upon the public processes is indubitable, as well. The resonance and relevance the lessons from the time have upon the conductions of today are quite astounding. In the present day, a juvenile is assured full and thorough practices of justice when any decision surrounding their future is made by the legal system. There is adequate representation, there is a provision for measuring reasonable doubt with the weight of the crime and consequence, and there are a multitude of resources available for support to be sought. However, the stepping stone towards this significant level of success was that of the Warren Court’s implementation of the several civil liberties that it advocated for. Without such a voice, there may still be doubt surrounding the matter of the ability of the judicial system to support the entirety of the citizenry in its entirety.

Within the context of the present day, therefore, the Warren Court still voices its opinion, through the means of previous case studies, through the messages conveyed by the majority opinions elaborated upon by each of the justices, and through the judicial representation guaranteed for individuals in a manner that is nondiscriminatory in terms of their age. While juveniles are certainly treated with according levels of crime and consequence, their decision is ensured to be sought through mannerisms that will not allow for principles of civil liberties to be disregarded. There are, however, other social factors that must be addressed by courts now and in the future, so that there is always a strong voice representing the entirety of the populace, as the Warren Court did for the citizenry of the United States. It is absolutely essential that this voice be willing to advocate for every individual who is presented to the doors of the court. It is critical that the members of the court look at the individual as one who is seeking a method to assure justice within whatever fate the court decides for them, and act in a manner that acknowledges and respects that.

At the core of the conductions of the Warren Court, the essential concept is equitability. It is a social concept that should not necessitate tremendous levels of further discussion, as it is embedded within the framework that the citizenry lives by on a daily basis. The constitutionality of a matter is not a personal preference—it is a legal determination. Neglecting to provide or accommodate such constitutional necessities goes beyond simply being a violation of justice. It is a violation of the foundation of the nation. In its essence, the Warren Court has left the future with one resounding message, that should and shall be considered when applying the principles of constitutionality to further contexts that the Warren Court was unable to approach: liberty is a hard sought right for each individual who seeks justice; thus, all decisions made surrounding these terms must consider that humanity is an abundant synonym for justice, and its presence from the judicial system should never fade.

Works Cited

Feld, Barry C. “Race, Politics, and Juvenile Justice: The Warren Court and the Conservative ‘Backlash.’” Scholarship Repository, University of Minnesota Law School, 2003, scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/ &httpsredir=1&article=1293&context=faculty_articles.

Gentes, Eric A. “Warren Court, The.” The Encyclopedia of Juvenile Delinquency and Justice - Gentes - Wiley Online Library, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 20 Nov. 2017, onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118524275.ejdj0140/abstract.

“In re Gault.” NJDC, NJDC, http://njdc.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/In-re-Gault-slip- opinion.pdf.

“In re Winship.” NJDC, NJDC, njdc.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/In-re-Winship-slip- opinion.pdf.

“Kent v. United States.” NJDC, NJDC, http://njdc.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Kent-v- United-States-slip-opinion.pdf.

“Parens patriae.” The Free Dictionary, Farlex, legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/parens patriae.

“United States Supreme Court Juvenile Justice Jurisprudence.” NJDC, NJDC, njdc.info/practice- policy-resources/united-states-supreme-court-juvenile-justice-jurisprudence/.

image credit:https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Earl_Warren