Part II of this Article examines the growth of the juvenile justice system as a system apart from the adult criminal system. It reviews the goals of the juvenile court system—to treat children differently than adults, to rehabilitate, and to protect both the child and society. Part II also discusses the gradual movement to harsher sentencing of young offenders and transferring those offenders to the adult criminal justice system, as well as the subsequent exhortation of the United States Supreme Court that youth in the juvenile justice system must be afforded the protection of constitutional rights. Part III.A explains the framework that Chief Justice O’Connor has applied consistently in juvenile-rights cases. In In re C.S., the Supreme Court of Ohio held, in an opinion written by then-Justice O’Connor, that juveniles may waive their right to counsel only if, under a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis, the juvenile court concludes that the juvenile received “meaningful advice” regarding the waiver. Part III.B describes the importance of In re C.S., in that Ohio appellate courts have applied its holding to assure meaningful pre-waiver advice to juveniles and that important aspects of In re C.S.’s requirements have been codified. Part III.C explores State v. D.W., in which the Supreme Court of Ohio—again in an opinion written by Chief Justice O’Connor— concluded that juveniles have a right to a hearing before being transferred from the juvenile justice system to the adult criminal system. The section also examines the Chief Justice’s arguments, in dissent in In re M.W., that (1) juveniles have a statutory right to counsel, under the Ohio Revised Code § 2151.352, during a police interrogation and before a complaint is filed; and (2) the majority used an incorrect constitutional analysis in determining whether juveniles have a constitutional right to counsel in the context of police interrogation.
McGee-Brown, Yvette and Jolson, Kimberly A.
"Chief Justice O'Connor's Juvenile Justice Jurisprudence: A Consistent Approach to Inconsistent Interests,"
Akron Law Review: Vol. 48:
1, Article 4.
Available at: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol48/iss1/4