Introduction
McKeiver v. Pennsylvania revolved around the constitutional rights applicable to cases implying juveniles’ participation. Thus, the central issue can be formulated in the following way: Does the Constitution, precisely the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, apply to juveniles and state delinquency proceedings?
Case Background
The case revolves around the juveniles brought to trial without a jury. Joseph McKeiver was a 16-year-old boy charged with robbery, larceny, and storing stolen goods per Pennsylvania law (McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 1971). Furthermore, another boy, Edward Terry, aged 15, was charged with assault, battery, and conspiracy (McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 1971). Thus, every defendant asked for a trial by jury as guaranteed by the Six or Fourteen Amendments (Epstein et al., 2021).
However, the counsel’s requests for this type of trial were denied, meaning the traditional approach was used (McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 1971). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court supported the decisions, which created the basis for the subsequent investigation of the case. Thus, following the existing legislation, in North Carolina, young people from 11 to 15 were considered delinquent by the juvenile court if the trial by jury was canceled (McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 1971).
As a result, the precedent emerged and required additional investigation. The U.S. Supreme Court consolidated the cases to decide whether a trial by jury for such proceedings might be applicable (McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 1971). In such a way, the case is based on the specific conditions under which juveniles’ offenses should be considered.
Court Ruling and Explanation
Considering the arguments the parties offered, the court offered its ruling. In a 6-3 plurality decision, most juries found no requirement for a jury trial in juvenile cases such as those discussed (McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 1971). The majority opinion was presented by Justice Blackmun, who focused on preserving the flexibility of juvenile delinquency proceedings (McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 1971).
Furthermore, the Court stated that the Sixth Amendment could not apply to the case because juvenile prosecution is neither criminal nor civil (McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 1971). For this reason, there is a critical need to use jury trials in cases such as the discussed one (McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 1971). At the same time, the Court admitted the demands for notice, cross-examination, counsel confrontation, and standard of proof for all juvenile proceedings (McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 1971). The court ruling created the basis for analyzing other incidents of this sort. The final statement is based on the Constitution, which does not state directly that trials by jury are a constitutional requirement.
Conclusion
Altogether, the case and the ruling are essential for juvenile rights and the further evaluation of cases such as McKeiver v Pennsylvania. Generally, it is possible to agree with the court’s decision and how it explained the conclusion. First of all, the Constitution does not say that a trial by jury is a critical requirement for all cases of this sort. It means that there is no law regulating this aspect.
Furthermore, allowing trials by the jury will lead to transforming all juvenile proceedings into highly sophisticated and contradictory processes. It might create numerous opportunities for altering juvenile justice and approaches to investigating and punishing crimes committed by individuals of a specific age group. For this reason, it is possible to agree with the ruling and view it as an essential step toward establishing a more effective system to manage juvenile crimes.
References
Epstein, L., McGuire, K., & Walker, T. (2021). Constitutional law for a changing America: Rights, liberties, and justice (11th ed.). CQ Press.
McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528 (1971)