Summary of Argument

Being incarcerated as a juvenile in a juvenile facility wasn’t great. But being bound over as a juvenile in an adult prison is torment. I wouldn’t want any juvenile to ever experience the pain and suffering I experienced. * * * I was left with no choice but to fend for myself and fight for my belongings at a young age. – D.N.

The hardest thing for me has been watching [my nephew] take blow after blow in his life and still not get any grace or mercy or compassion or empathy from the system. None of what he’s been through is even considered. – L.S.

“Since its origin, the juvenile justice system has emphasized individual assessment, the best interest of the child, treatment, and rehabilitation, with a goal of reintegrating juveniles back into society.” State v. Hanning, 89 Ohio St.3d 86, 88-89, 728 N.E.2d 1059 (2000). These unique characteristics of the juvenile court reflect the firmly established notion that youth are different than adults and the importance of making individualized decisions for youth – even youth who commit serious offenses and who are deeply involved in the adult criminal justice system. See e.g., Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 551, 125 S.Ct. 1183, 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005) (prohibiting the death penalty for individuals under the age of 18); Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 48, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010) (prohibiting youth from receiving life without the possibility of parole for non-homicide offenses); Miller v. Alabama, __ U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 2457-2459, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012) (finding mandatory life without parole sentences unconstitutional for youth under age 18 without consideration of the youth’s age and family and home environment, the circumstances of the offense, and potential for rehabilitation); In re C.P., 131 Ohio St.3d 513, 2012-Ohio-1446, 967 N.E.2d 729, ¶ 38-62 (finding that mandatory lifetime sex offender registration does not allow courts to take into account the relative culpability of youth and ability to be rehabilitated, the nature of the offense, and the relative severity of the punishment, including the increased proportion of the youth’s life that a sentence would affect).

Ohio’s mandatory bindover law should be eliminated based on constitutional challenges as outlined in Matthew’s merit brief. This amicus brief provides additional evidence supporting these constitutional challenges, including further support, by juvenile justice system stakeholders, youth-focused organizations, and the public, of a national and Ohio consensus against the mandatory transfer of youth to adult court.

Mandatory bindover does not comport with the widely accepted constitutional premise, based in case law and research, that the hallmark features of youth require an individualized analysis when determining whether a youth should be transferred to adult court. However, despite efforts over the years to limit the use of mandatory bindover in Ohio by creating less harsh alternatives, including the passage of Ohio’s Serious Youthful Offender laws in 2000 and reverse waiver laws in 2011, mandatory bindover continues to be used at a relatively high rate and these alternatives have been underutilized—resulting in hundreds of youth being transferred to adult court without an individualized decision-making process. Finally, Ohio’s mandatory bindover law is not meeting its intended goals and goes against the fundamental purpose of Ohio’s juvenile code.

To be clear, in mandatory bindover cases – such as the case at bar – juvenile court judges only have authority to determine whether probable cause exists that the youth committed the offense. R.C. 2152.12(A)(1)(a)(i). This analysis does not require any examination of the specific circumstances of the particular case, including the youth’s individual characteristics or role in the offense. Instead, it is a minimal “yes or no” determination, which leaves the essential question of whether to bindover a youth in the hands of the prosecutor, a party to the proceedings, rather than a juvenile court judge. Therefore, in mandatory bindover cases, discretion rests with the prosecutor, who is not guided by a set of factors to consider and whose decisions are not subject to appellate review. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention, Trying Juveniles as Adults: An Analysis of State Transfer Laws and Reporting (2011) 2, available at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/232434.pdf (accessed January 4, 2016).

Summary of Argument

The legal framework of the juvenile justice system emphasizes individualized assessment, the best interests of the child, treatment, and rehabilitation. This approach is grounded in the understanding that young people are distinct from adults and require tailored interventions. However, in Ohio, a mandatory bindover law allows for the transfer of juveniles to the adult criminal justice system without individualized consideration. This practice contradicts the core principles of the juvenile justice system and raises serious constitutional concerns.

Mandatory bindover law in Ohio is incompatible with the constitutional principle of individualized assessment for juveniles. This law circumvents the opportunity for judges to consider the youth's individual characteristics, their role in the offense, and their potential for rehabilitation. Instead, it delegates the decision to bindover to prosecutors, who lack guidance on factors to consider and whose decisions are not subject to appellate review. This lack of individualized assessment violates the core principles of the juvenile justice system, as well as established case law protecting the rights of minors.

A national consensus exists against mandatory transfer of youth to adult court. Various juvenile justice stakeholders, youth-focused organizations, and the public support the elimination of mandatory bindover laws. Despite efforts to create less harsh alternatives, including the Serious Youthful Offender laws and reverse waiver laws, mandatory bindover continues to be used at a high rate in Ohio. This underutilization of alternatives highlights the need for a more nuanced approach to juvenile justice, one that prioritizes individualized assessment and rehabilitation.

Ohio's mandatory bindover law fails to meet its intended goals. The law lacks a robust system for individualized decision-making and relies heavily on the discretion of prosecutors. This approach is detrimental to the rehabilitation of youth and undermines the fundamental purpose of the juvenile code, which is to address the unique needs and circumstances of young people in conflict with the law.

Summary of Argument

The use of mandatory bindover, which automatically transfers juveniles to adult court, in Ohio should be eliminated due to its inconsistency with the juvenile justice system's core principles and its lack of effectiveness. This practice fails to consider the unique characteristics of youth, prioritizes punishment over rehabilitation, and hinders the individualized assessments that are crucial for juvenile justice.

Ohio's mandatory bindover law is challenged on constitutional grounds based on established case law and research. This law clashes with the principle that youth require an individualized assessment when deciding whether to transfer them to adult court. Despite attempts to mitigate the harshness of mandatory bindover through alternative laws, it continues to be used extensively, with hundreds of youth transferred without individualized consideration.

Furthermore, Ohio's mandatory bindover law is not fulfilling its intended goals and contradicts the fundamental purpose of the juvenile code. It lacks the necessary framework for individualized decision-making, leaving the critical decision to transfer a youth to adult court in the hands of the prosecutor, not a judge. This process focuses on a simple "yes or no" determination of probable cause, disregarding the specific circumstances of the case, the youth's individual characteristics, and their role in the offense.

Summary of Argument

The juvenile justice system is designed to be different from the adult system. It focuses on rehabilitation and reintegrating youth into society. This is because young people are seen as different from adults and need individualized attention, even if they commit serious crimes.

The legal decisions that have been made over the years support this idea. These decisions have said that juveniles can't receive the death penalty, life sentences without the possibility of parole for non-violent crimes, or mandatory life sentences without considering the circumstances of the crime and the youth's potential for rehabilitation.

Ohio's mandatory bindover law forces certain juveniles to be tried as adults, even if the circumstances of their case suggest they might benefit from the juvenile system. This is a problem because it goes against the constitutional principle of considering the individual circumstances of each case.

While there have been attempts to make the juvenile system more flexible, mandatory bindover continues to be used too often, and the alternatives are not used enough. This means that hundreds of youth are being forced into the adult system without an individualized assessment.

This law also goes against the goals of the juvenile system, which is to help youth, not punish them. By using mandatory bindover, judges don't have the opportunity to consider the youth's individual characteristics or role in the crime. Instead, the decision is left up to the prosecutor, who may not be considering all of the relevant factors.

Summary of Argument

In some states, kids who break the law can be tried in adult court. This means they could be sent to adult prison instead of a youth detention center. A lot of people think this is wrong because kids are different from adults.

Kids are still growing and learning, and they might not fully understand the consequences of their actions. They also might be more likely to change their behavior than adults. Sending a kid to adult prison can make it harder for them to get help and change their lives.

There are some cases where a judge can decide if a kid should be tried as an adult. But in some states, the law says that kids who commit certain crimes have to be tried as adults, no matter what. This is called "mandatory bindover."

A lot of people think mandatory bindover is a bad idea because it doesn't let the judge consider all of the factors in a case. It also doesn't give the kid a chance to get the help they need.

Some states have changed their laws to make it harder for kids to be tried as adults. But some states, like Ohio, still have mandatory bindover laws. This means that some kids who could benefit from a different kind of help might end up in adult prison.