Kent v. United States

The problem with Kent's case, however, was that it was technically less a "crime" than a "social problem" under the formative guidelines of the juvenile court system. The early twentieth century heralded the formal creation of a separate judicial system for youthful offenders in the United States. Its aim was rehabilitation rather than punishment, and the juvenile courts were designed to provide a framework of support with this in mind. Social workers, probation officers, and psychologists--ruled over by a trained and sympathetic judge--would provide the offender with the necessary assistance to improve himself and stay out of trouble. Juvenile offenses were considered a social problem, not an infraction against society. The juvenile justice system was designed as an exchange of sorts: minors did not enjoy the same rights as adult defendants, but were treated more leniently. To grant them the equal protection dictated by the Constitution would have hindered the system's ability to provide rehabilitation.

Kent's mother obtained a lawyer, and a caseworker from juvenile court met with the attorney and advised him that they were considering "waiving" the case--that is, passing it over to the U.S. district court. There, Kent would be tried as an adult for all the offenses. The lawyer requested a hearing on the waiver, and also filed a request for access to the Social Services file that had been kept on Kent during his probation period. Meanwhile, Kent remained in the District of Columbia's Receiving Home for Children for a week, without being formally arraigned on any charges. For adults, such detention without arraignment is considered unlawful under the Constitution.