Birckhead — Volume 57, Issue 5

American juvenile courts historically balanced rehabilitative goals with procedural informality, but increasingly operate as punitive systems without adequate constitutional protections. The juvenile court evolved from nineteenth-century reformers' desire to create separate institutions for children, emphasizing rehabilitation and discretion. However, as juvenile courts became more punitive, courts granted juveniles basic due process rights through foundational cases including Kent v. United States and In re Gault, yet these protections remain incomplete. The article examines tensions between granting procedural rights and preserving juvenile court's rehabilitative mission, noting that courts have rejected a quid pro quo approach where procedural protections would displace rehabilitation. Recent developments show courts applying flexible balancing tests to determine which procedural protections are constitutionally mandated, creating inconsistency across jurisdictions. Birckhead argues that juveniles currently receive the worst of both worlds—procedural informality without protective benefits and increasing punitiveness without adult rights. The article proposes a theory of procedural justice that balances rehabilitation interests with fundamental fairness requirements.

Topics: Criminal Procedure · Constitutional Law · Family Law

Keywords: juvenile justice · due process · Kent v. United States · In re Gault · rehabilitation · procedural rights · juvenile delinquency