NCJ Number
99108
Journal
Journal of Juvenile Law Volume: 8 Issue: 1 Dated: (1984) Pages: 32-57
Date Published
1984
Length
26 pages
Annotation
Following a review of the major themes addressed in the U.S. Supreme Court's decision of In re Gault, this article reviews the philosophy of juvenile rights articulated in cases heard by the West Virginia State Court of Appeals.
Abstract
In Gault, the Court supported the proposition that juveniles are entitled to solicitous care and treatment, but rejected the historic rationale of the juvenile court system that accused juveniles did not possess a liberty interest and therefore, need not be accorded due process of law. In the 1977 decision in State ex rel. Harris v. Calendine, the West Virginia Court held that the substantive due process clause required that the State demonstrate that its exercise of parens patriae legitimately promoted the rehabilitation and protection of children. Following Harris, the State revamped its juvenile code. The right to least restrictive treatment now was afforded to status offenders and adjudicated delinquents. The majority of post-Harris cases can be seen as attempts to clarify the basic principles enunciated in Harris, particularly the concept of least restrictive alternative, the roles of attorneys and judges at the dispositional stage, grounds for secure treatment, and juvenile right to counsel. The turmoil over juvenile rights is the result of attempts to correct years of abuse. Harris and subsequent cases caused the most severe problems for judges, attorneys, and law enforcement personnel who were used to the old system. The decisions in Harris and subsequent cases proved a source of discomfort for those who believe that the child's immaturity is grounds for according juveniles fewer rights than adults. With only one exception, West Virginia cases demonstrate the court's willingness to extend to children those rights necessary for effective treatment and rehabilitation. A total of 133 footnotes are provided.