The Supreme Court and Juvenile Justice
Christopher P. Manfredi
New in Paperback: March 2000
xvi, 256 pages, 618 x 914
Paper ISBN 978-0-7006-1028-0, $15.95
Also available in cloth
ISBN 978-0-7006-0851-5, $35.00
Over the past century, attitudes
toward juvenile crime have alternated between rehabilitation
and crime control, and even now are being revised in reponse
to increasing gang violence. But by the 1960s, it had become
obvious that juvenile offenders were being deprived of fundamental
rights, leading Supreme Court Justice Fortas to declare that
"neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor the Bill of Rights
is for adults alone."
The Supreme Court and Juvenile Justice takes in a century
of change to focus on how the Supreme Court brought the juvenile
court system under constitutional control. It describes in detail
the case of Gerald Gault, an Arizona teenager who was sent to
reform school for making an obscene phone call. Christopher Manfredi
takes readers behind the scenes in this case to review its progress
through the judicial system, discuss all pertinent briefs, and
analyze the Supreme Court's 1967 decision that Gault had been
denied due process.
As background to Gault, Manfredi also examines Kent v.
United States (1966), which involved a juvenile accused of
rape and robbery who was handed over to criminal court. He then
reviews the significant cases following Gault--notably In
re Winship (1970) and McKeiver v. Pennsylvania (1971)--and
considers how the Supreme Court's "constitutional domestication"
of juvenile courts affected further development of juvenile justice
policy.
In re Gault was the first and most extensive decision
imposing constitutionally-derived standards of due process on
juvenile courts; yet it has received little attention in the
literature because of its lack of drama and visibility. In showing
how juvenile court reform became part of the constitutional agenda
of the 1960s, Manfredi demonstrates why Gault became the principal
vehicle for carrying out that reform and provides a means for
better understanding the nature and limitations of social reform
litigation.
"Manfredi looks at the evolution of the juvenile justice
system from the standpoint of legal realism and finds that, realistically,
the Supreme Court has less of an ability to foster legal and
social change than some of its justices, and many advocacy groups,
would like. Focusing on three key cases--Kent, Gault,
and Winship--he tells a tale of changing perspectives,
clashing agendas, missed opportunities, and the misuse of precedent
and various documentary sources by justices intent on justifying
a particular outcome."--National Law Journal
"Essential reading for anyone interested in juvenile
justice or the process of criminal procedure litigation. Manfredi
is an outstanding storyteller."--Perspectives on Political
Science
"This is an illuminating examination of what happens
when courts attempt to reform institutions. Manfredi gets inside
the litigation process in a way that few commentators have, and
he recounts the criminalization of the juvenile justice system
that followed the Supreme Court's well-intentioned reforming
efforts with keen insight and a sense of irony. It is a gripping
tale, very well told."--Donald L. Horowitz, author
of The Courts and Social Policy
"Manfredi spins a good tale and places that tale within
a well-defined framework. Readers will come away with a good
deal of substantive information about both the juvenile justice
movement and Court doctrine in this area. An interesting and
useful book for political scientists and legal scholars."--Lee
Epstein, coauthor of Constitutional Law for a Changing
America
"Manfredi makes an important contribution to dealing
with the continually vexing problem of juvenile crime."--Sanford
Fox, author of Modern Juvenile Justice
CHRISTOPHER P. MANFREDI is associate professor of political
science at McGill University and the author of Judicial Power
and the Charter: Canada and the Paradox of Liberal Constitutionalism.
|