Fifty years ago on May 15, the U.S. Supreme Court issued the landmark decision of In Re: Gault. Connecticut's commitment to juvenile justice has given us hope that the legacy of Gault will continue to be honored for another 50 years.
In 1967, 15-year-old Gerald Gault was taken into custody for making prank phone calls to his neighbor in Arizona. His parents were not called or notified that he had been arrested. Gerald had two hearings before the judge but he was never formally told what he was charged with. There was no lawyer present on his behalf at his "trial," which consisted of him being cross-examined by the judge. The alleged victim did not testify. Indeed, there wasn't even a transcript of the proceedings. The judge found him delinquent and committed him to the Arizona Technical School, the 1967 equivalent of our training school, for a maximum period of six years, i.e., until he turned 21. By contrast, if Gerald had been 18, the maximum penalty would have been a $50 fine or two months in jail.
The juvenile court system back then was markedly different from adult courts. With the focus on rehabilitation, not punishment, constitutional protections afforded an adult defendant were deemed unnecessary for juveniles. Those in favor of this approach wanted to de-emphasize the adversarial nature of the court system and instead wanted to give the state the role of parens patriae. As Gerald Gault's case demonstrated, however, this approach led to arbitrary and unjust results. As the Supreme Court noted, "unbridled discretion, however benevolently motivated, is frequently a poor substitute for principle and procedure."
In its decision applying the protections and guarantees of our constitution to juvenile proceedings, the Supreme Court observed that "[i]t would be extraordinary if our Constitution did not require the procedural regularity and the exercise of care implied in the phrase 'due process,'" and that "[u]nder our Constitution, the condition of being a boy does not justify a kangaroo court." The court ruled that children and youth accused of crimes and appearing in court deserved the same constitutional protections as adult criminal defendants. Among these rights were notice of charges, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses and the right to be represented by counsel.
Connecticut has done its best to give full effect to the Gault decision. In Connecticut, accused youth have access to well-trained public defenders who dedicate their careers to representing children. Our judges and practice rules discourage the waiver of counsel and courts have discretion to provide court-appointed counsel to any child if the interest of justice requires it. Our statutes require that police make good-faith efforts to contact parents and secure their presence before interviewing children. Our laws protect the dispositions of children in juvenile courts, thereby giving them the opportunity to lead successful lives upon rehabilitation.
Through the efforts of counsel for children, the Legislature has raised the age of juvenile court jurisdiction, created a procedure for determining competency of juveniles that places an emphasis on child psychology and provided for a hearing in juvenile court before all but the most serious matters are transferred to the adult docket. All of this has been possible in Connecticut because we have committed to the legacy of Gault in protecting the future of our children through providing competent counsel for them. Any time a court makes any decision that implicates a child's liberty how they will be educated, who will raise them or what happens when they are accused of a crime children and youth should have an advocate giving voice to their wishes and protecting them from the unjust consequences suffered by Gerald Gault. This is the legacy of In Re: Gault. Our youth and society will be better off if we all commit to its promise.