When it comes to the United States Supreme Court and the Juvenile Court, things changed in the 1960s, when the Supreme Court issued several decisions that would expand the due process rights for any criminal defendant. This was under the leadership of Chief Justice Earl Warren, who was concerned that civil liberties and human rights and how they were reflected in decisions. “In general, the Court believed that criminal defendants were citizens who were presumed innocent until they had been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. As citizens, criminal defendants were entitled to the rights and privileges guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution” (Bernard pg. 96). There were two cases that were important on this matter, that of Mapp vs. Ohio in
…show more content…
The first being that in the Kent case, he was being punished for not being helped. Second, he was being punished “based on an assessment of actual performance of the juvenile justice system, not its good intentions” (Bernard pg. 103). Thirdly, it was questioned by the court that parens patriae be rejected because its meaning is no longer relevant. Fourth, due process protection is needed because of safeguards that are available for adults but not juveniles. All four of these reasoning’s appear in the Gault case, and was outlined in the Kent case. Juveniles that are in juvenile court are needing to give up part of their protection in order to receive care that is given to juveniles. This is different from the Supreme Court in which you are allowed to receive the special care needed without having to give up their …show more content…
A saleslady says she saw him leave the store and the lady found the money missing. A witness said that the saleslady was in another part of the store and would not have could see that it was Winship. His lawyer claimed to establish “reasonable doubt” about his guilt and presented the witness who saw the saleslady in another part of the store. The judge however held that the evidence was that Winship was the one who took the money. The lawyer then appealed the decision and the case went to the Supreme
The first being that in the Kent case, he was being punished for not being helped. Second, he was being punished “based on an assessment of actual performance of the juvenile justice system, not its good intentions” (Bernard pg. 103). Thirdly, it was questioned by the court that parens patriae be rejected because its meaning is no longer relevant. Fourth, due process protection is needed because of safeguards that are available for adults but not juveniles. All four of these reasoning’s appear in the Gault case, and was outlined in the Kent case. Juveniles that are in juvenile court are needing to give up part of their protection in order to receive care that is given to juveniles. This is different from the Supreme Court in which you are allowed to receive the special care needed without having to give up their …show more content…
A saleslady says she saw him leave the store and the lady found the money missing. A witness said that the saleslady was in another part of the store and would not have could see that it was Winship. His lawyer claimed to establish “reasonable doubt” about his guilt and presented the witness who saw the saleslady in another part of the store. The judge however held that the evidence was that Winship was the one who took the money. The lawyer then appealed the decision and the case went to the Supreme