Brown Undergraduate Law Review — Vol. 2 No. 2 (Spring 2021)

The Failure of the Treatment of Low-Level Offenders in the Juvenile Justice System
Juvenile Justice: The Problem
standing, the due process rights and equal protection
statuses of these minors were never fully investigated by
When Alin N. was 13 years old, the Providence School
the courts.
District filed a petition to truancy court to judge Alin as
?wayward? and habitually truant. Alin suffers from
sickle-cell anemia, a genetic disorder that causes severe
pain and swelling, which often results in missed school.
Because of his condition, Alin had an Individualized
Education Plan, under Section 504 of the federal
Rehabilitation Act, that stated he would not be punished
for his absences. Despite extensive documentation, the
truancy judge issued an arrest warrant for Alin and ordered
his attendance at school that day and the next 30 days.
Within two hours of returning to school, Alin was rushed
to the hospital due to severe chest pain. It was not until
months later, when a public defender presented evidence of
Alin?s medical condition and Section 504 plan, that the
judge dismissed Alin?s case. 1
As Justice Fortas wrote in In re Gault, ?Under our
Constitution, the condition of being a boy does not justify
a kangaroo court.? 2 However, that is exactly what Alin
experienced in the Truancy Court, a subdivision of the
Rhode Island Family Court system. Alin was just one of
The Bill of Rights guarantees citizens substantial
protections in the context of government investigation and
prosecution, including in respect to searches and arrest
under the Fourth Amendment, due process, the privilege
against self-incrimination and double jeopardy in the Fifth
Amendment, and the right to a speedy and public trial,
cross-examination, and counsel by the Sixth Amendment. 4
Youth are often denied these same protections in the
juvenile justice system, as illustrated by Alin?s case.
Justice Fortas wrote in Gault that ?neither the Fourteenth
Amendment nor the Bill of Rights is for adults alone,? but
the Court has specifically endorsed in cases such as In re
Gault, In re Winship, and McKeiver v Pennsylvania lower
due process standards for juveniles precisely because they
are children. 5
Since the founding of the juvenile justice system,
informality and flexibility have been endorsed in order to
ensure rehabilitation instead of punishment. The right to
counsel, a jury or public trial, sworn testimony, and the
multiple plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit Boyer v. privilege against self-incrimination have not been
Bedrosian, which detailed due process violations by
Truancy Courts in Rhode Island. The complaint detailed
failure to assign counsel, insufficient notice, and improper
waiving of constitutional rights, rights which were
extended to juvenile courts with In re Gault by the
Supreme Court. Boyer v. Bedrosian was resolved by an
11th-hour administrative order that rendered the class
action suit moot. 3 Due to mootness, and subsequent loss of
guaranteed by the juvenile justice system. The Supreme
Court, recognizing the lack of procedural safeguards, ruled
in 1967 with In re Gault to extend some due process
protections to the juvenile court system, but denied full
due process protections to juveniles that are afforded to
adults in the criminal justice system. 6 The Court rests its
decision on the doctrine of parens patriae, the power of
the state to act for the welfare of the child. 7 However, with
1. Boyer v. Bedrosian, 57 A.3d 259 (2012).
2. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 39 (1967), (Fortas, J., plurality opinion).
3. Boyer v. Bedrosian, 57 A.3d 259, 271 - 274(2012).
4. U.S. Constitution, Amend. IV, V, VI.
5. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 13.
6. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, (1970).
7. Irene Merker Rosenberg, ?The Rights of Delinquents in Juvenile Court: Why Not Equal Protection?? Criminal Law Bulletin 45, no. 5 (September
- October 2009), 734.
Brown Undergraduate Law Review
8