The thesis of this paper can be stated simply: to the extent that courts permit procedural (or substantive)' treatment of juveniles which varies from and falls below the constitutional protections which adults may command, and that variance is predicated upon the power of the State to substitute rehabilitation for punishment in dealing with the young, then, and to the same extent, the courts have the duty of seeing to it that the treatment afforded is in fact rehabilitative and not punitive in nature and effect. Otherwise, the courts must face the criticism that: It is not only illogical but blatantly inconsistent with the fair treatment of the child to argue, on the one hand, that the safeguards of criminal procedure are unnecessary in non criminal cases and then, on the other hand, to apply criminal sanctions in such cases.
Thomas M. Cooley II,
Court Control over Treatment of Juvenile Offenders,
Duq. L. Rev.
Available at: https://dsc.duq.edu/dlr/vol9/iss4/6