What fundamental right did the juveniles lack in McKeiver v. Pennsylvania that is typically provided in adult trials?

In McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, the fundamental right that juveniles lacked in their proceedings compared to adult trials was the right to a jury trial. The Supreme Court ruled that the provision of a jury trial is not a constitutionally guaranteed right for juvenile offenders under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead, the court determined that juvenile proceedings, such as those in this case, focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment, and therefore, it is sufficient for such cases to be decided by a judge rather than a jury.

The ruling highlighted the distinction between juvenile and adult criminal justice systems, where the latter typically ensures a jury trial for serious offenses under the Sixth Amendment. The absence of a jury trial in juvenile proceedings does not imply a lack of fairness; rather, the court intended to maintain a system that could adapt more flexibly to the unique circumstances and developmental needs of young offenders. Thus, the critical aspect of this decision centers on the type of adjudication appropriate for juveniles and the overarching goals of juvenile justice, contrasting with the adult system that provides more extensive procedural protections.