Minnesota Law Review

Note, In re the Welfare of Due Process

The juvenile justice system is not the same as when it started. This Note argues that the juvenile court has become as punitive, as public, and as formalistic as the adult system from which it was supposed to differ. Furthermore, the modern juvenile court suffers from the precise problems against which juries historically guard. The racial bias and the high degree of judicial discretion inherent in the juvenile court thus demand that juveniles be entitled to a jury trial. Kids are still different from adults, but they are not so different that they can be denied due process of the law.

“Get tough” political platforms and punitive legislative reform have demanded that courts reexamine what due process rights must be made available to young offenders. In 2008, the Kansas Supreme Court broke with existing precedent when it decided that juveniles tried in that state are entitled to a trial by jury under the federal Constitution. This decision has rekindled the debate concerning the goals of juvenile justice, the reality of the system as it functions today, and fundamental fairness. This Note draws upon such legal precedent, supplementing the analysis with an examination of the modern realities of juvenile justice, such as which juveniles are incarcerated, the correctional facilities used, and the effect of a juvenile adjudication, and argues that Kansas got it right. It analyzes the question of whether juveniles have the right to a trial by jury with attention to historical underpinnings, legal precedent and systemic change.

This Note concludes with the observation that juries in juvenile court may not always be required. To the extent that true efforts are made to return the system to its rehabilitative roots, an outcome that is desirable from a policy perspective, the added expenditure of time and money that juries entail can perhaps rightfully be avoided. For so long as juvenile offenders are treated as punitively as adults—warehoused and supervised in the name of punishment rather than rehabilitation—they are entitled to adult due process protection, which necessarily includes the right to trial by jury.

:: View PDF

News & Events

  • Fall Submissions Open – Headnotes

    The Minnesota Law Review: Headnotes fall submissions period is open. For more information, please visit our submissions page. Share this: on Twitter on Facebook on Google+

  • Vol. 97 Piece Quoted in Mother Jones Article

    A recent Mother Jones article predicting how the Roberts Court would resolve King v. Burwell draws on How Business Fares in the Supreme Court from Volume 97. You can read the article here. Share this: on Twitter on Facebook on Google+

  • Welcome to De Novo

    For nearly one hundred years, the Minnesota Law Review has been a leader amongst academic legal publications. When Professor Henry J. Fletcher launched the journal in 1917, his goal was simple. It was to “contribute a little something to the systematic growth of the whole law.” Since then, the Law [...]

  • Minnesota Law Review Alum Remembered 45 Years After Death

    Minnesota Law Review alumnus Tom Cranna was honored at the Annual Banquet this Spring, 45 years after his death. Mr. Cranna was remembered for his contributions to the journal, the school, and the positive impact he had on his family and friends. The Devil’s Lake Journal published a memorial which [...]

  • Follow MLR on Twitter!

    The Minnesota Law Review is proud to announce that we are now on Twitter. Follow us @MinnesotaLawRev for information and updates concerning the petition period and deadlines, the opening and closing of article submissions, our 2014 Symposium: Offenders in the Community, and all other news concerning our authors and publications. [...]


cforms contact form by delicious:days