New juvenile laws at work
The Plain Dealer reported on another case involving Juvenile Law today. This time, a sixteen year old boy is accused of murder, attempted murder, attempted rape and kidnapping. Some of these crimes date back to 2001. In recent years, Ohio has transformed the purposes of the Juvenile Code from a rehabilitative model to a punitive one.

Based on these new laws, the Juvenile Court will have a variety of options in handling the case. Based on his age (sixteen) and the offense (attempted aggravated murder in 2002), he could be subject to a mandatory bindover to the adult criminal court and the Juvenile Court would be compelled to transfer its jurisdiction over the matter. If he was actually fifteen when the 2002 acts occurred and has never been committed to the Ohio Department of Youth Services (ODYS), he could be transferred to the adult court at the Juvenile Court's discretion or the Juvenile Court could chose to use the new serious youthful offender (SYO) disposition to his cases. In a serious youthful offender case, the Juvenile Court imposes a "blended sentence" containing both traditional juvenile dispositions ( commitment to ODYS or probation) and adult sentences (prison time, adult probation etc). The adult portion is "stayed" and if the juvenile can successfully complete the juvenile portion of his sentence, the adult portion will never be imposed. The idea is that the child will receive more rehabilitative services in the juvenile court system, which will hopefully deter him from a life of crime.

Interesting note: unlike most other juvenile hearings, the public (including the media) has an absolute right to observe SYO proceedings.

Finally, this child will also be facing classification as a Juvenile Sex Offender Registrant (JSOR) for the 2002 rape. If he was fifteen at the time, the Juvenile Court may choose to require him to register as a JSOR. If he was sixteen, he will be required to register. Depending on his delinquency history and any psychological assessments, the Court may also label him a habitual sex offender or a sexual predator.

There haven't been too many SYO's across the state so far. Courts are theorizing that the prosecutors are just more comfortable with the bindover process, which has existed as long as the juvenile courts. Most SYO's have been initiated by the public defender as part of a plea and the prosecutors file the appropriate paperwork.

In this case, like so many others, I think the kid just may walk away with several different labels and not much in the way of services to help him.