Individualized Justice: Ending the Automatic Shackling of Youth in Juvenile Court
Jill Beeler-Office of the Ohio Public Defender, Juvenile Division
Shakyra Diaz-Policy Manager for the ACLU of Ohio
OJACC Conference-October 8, 2015
1
Kids VS. Adults 2
Kids VS. Adults 3
Kids in Shackles
Kids for Cash
4
Legal Implications:Chains Hurt the Constitution The indiscriminate use of restraints in
court: Create a presumption of guilt Interfere with the attorney-client
relationship Have a chilling effect on notions of
fairness Undermine due process protections Conflict with goals of the juvenile justice
systemProvide for the care, protection, and
mental and physical development of children
5
Legal Implications:Chains Hurt the Constitution Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (2005)
Adult defendant was restrained as the jury considered the death penalty
Court reiterated long-held rule that the right to appear before a jury unshackled is a basic element of the due process of law
3 fundamental legal principles:The presumption of innocenceThe right to counselThe need for judges to maintain a
dignified judicial process
6
Legal Implications:Chains Hurt the Constitution Deck held indiscriminant shackling of
adult during the penalty phase: Violates due process clause of the
5th and 14th Amendments Violates the 6th Amendment right to
counsel: Violates each these rights in the
same manner as during the guilt phase
7
Legal Implications:Chains Hurt the Constitution Practical implications in criminal court
Discretion of the trial court judge Restraints should be used as a last
resort If there is a dispute, court must hold a
hearing to determine if restraints are necessary
Make a finding justifying the restraintMore than mere deference to law
enforcementPreferred practice to hold the hearing
prior to restraining the defendant
8
Legal Implications:Chains Hurt the Constitution But kids don’t have the right to trial by jury Kids do have
Presumption of innocenceRight to the effective assistance of counselRight to due process
Kids who are shackled in courtDo not present themselves as wellCannot effectively communicate with their
counselCannot effectively communicate with the courtAre not able to listen and absorb informationDo not feel like they are being treated fairly
9
Adolescent Development: Chains Hurt ChildrenIt is well known that between 75% to 93% of youth entering the juvenile justice system annually have experienced some degree of trauma.
Research and the U.S. Supreme Court have found that minors are less culpable and more amenable to rehabilitation than adults.
“Shackling is inherently shame-producing. Feelings of shame and humiliation may inhibit positive self- development and productive community participation.”—CWLA, January 2015
10
11Adolescent Development:Chains Hurt Children
“The practice of indiscriminate shackling adds to the trauma that many of these youth have already experienced. It is also unnecessarily demeaning, humiliating and stigmatizing.”—AACAP, January 2015
“…a policy of indiscriminate juvenile shackling is in essence a policy of retraumatization…”—AOA, January 2015
ODH
ODJFS
ODD
12Who Limits the Use of Restraints & Shackles? All Common
Pleas Courts in Ohio
ODRC
ODYS
ODMHAS
ODE
22 States & D.C. limit the use of restraints in juvenile courtEast Coast Connecticut
Florida
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
New York
North Carolina
South Carolina
Vermont
Washington D.C.
West Coast Alaska
California
New Mexico
Nevada
Oregon
Utah
Washington
Mid-WestIdaho
Indiana
Illinois
Nebraska
North Dakota
Pennsylvania
13
What is the national conversation on the issue? The National Council of Juvenile and
Family Court Judges resolves to stop shackling children in juvenile court-August 2015
The American Bar Association resolves to urge all government to adopt a presumption against the use of restraints on juveniles in court-February 2015
14
Where does Ohio stand? ‘An Ohio Supreme Court subcommittee will examine and deliver recommendations concerning policies juvenile courts must follow when considering whether youths should be restrained during court proceedings.’
Chief Justice O’Connor noted, “We must balance the safety of the juvenile and others in court proceedings with the rehabilitative focus that is at the core of our juvenile court system. Clearly there are circumstances where restraints are needed. But blanket restraint policies that do not consider the least restrictive means backed by findings that restraints in individual cases are necessary seems contrary to that purpose.”
Court News Ohio, Staff Report August 19, 2015
15
