Gault: Procedural Change and Substantive Effect

Established to provide noncriminal treatment for youths, juve nile courts in the United States have been subjected recently to mounting criticism. Emphasis upon individual rights and the dis covery that the courts have often failed to achieve their goals contributed to an upheaval in the juvenile courts culminating in the Gault decision by the Supreme Court on May 15, 1967. To gauge the effects of the decision, this study analyzed a juvenile court's records for a two-year period. Both quantitative and quali tative changes were discovered, even though no statutory changes occurred. A doubling in the percentage of cases with counsel and a reduction in the total number of cases reflect an increased emphasis upon legal fact-finding. This change in normative em phasis was brought about primarily by changes in the attitudes of court personnel and law-enforcement agencies.

Download Full-text

American Perspectives on Self-Incrimination and the Compelled Production of Evidence

The International Journal of Evidence & Proof ◽

10.1177/136571270200600402 ◽

2002 ◽

Vol 6 (4) ◽

pp. 218-242

Author(s):

Mark Berger

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Law Enforcement ◽

Supreme Court ◽

The United States ◽

United States Constitution ◽

Search And Seizure ◽

Fifth Amendment ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Intimate Relation ◽

Government Authority

The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that no person may be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. The Boyd decision in 1886 recognised an intimate relation between the privilege against self-incrimination and the restrictions on search and seizure in the Fourth Amendment and created a virtually impenetrable barrier to government demands that a suspect or defendant be compelled to produce evidence against himself. However, since that time the Supreme Court has progressively restricted the scope of Fifth Amendment protection in relation to the compelled production of evidence. This has been achieved by requiring all citizens to appear before grand juries; by denying Fifth Amendment protection to entities; by holding that the compelled production of evidence does not breach the Fifth Amendment unless the very act of production is self-incriminatory; and by denying the privilege in relation to required records. The Supreme Court's stance reflects a recognition of the complexity of contemporary law enforcement problems and may be seen as an attempt to balance the state's interest in the successful prosecution of crime against the citizen's interest in being free from state intrusion. The effect of the Supreme Court's reforms has been to broaden government authority to compel offenders to assist in their own prosecutions whilst limiting Fifth Amendment protection to incrimination through the accused's own testimony or its equivalent.

Download Full-text