Summary

Under current Ohio law, some juvenile offenders are automatically tried as adults. House Bill 500 would eliminate those mandatory bindovers to adult court. For the reasons explained below, we oppose HB 500.

Current Juvenile Offender Laws

To summarize, some juvenile defendants are subject to mandatory transfer to adult court. This is explained in detail below. The mandatory transfer laws really only apply to: alleged murderers and attempted murderers; defendants who have previously committed serious violent crimes and are alleged to have committed additional violent crimes; and defendants who are alleged to have used a firearm during a serious violent crime. A juvenile not sent to adult court under mandatory transfer laws can be sent to adult court at a juvenile court judge’s discretion. A juvenile defendant can be designated a “Serious Youthful Offender” and be given a blended sentence–they receive a traditional juvenile court sentence and they receive an adult sentence. The adult sentence is invoked if certain requirements are met.

Mandatory Transfers

Under current Ohio law, some juvenile offenders who are charged with Category One or Category Two offenses must be tried in adult court. Category One offenses include murder, aggravated murder, attempted murder, and attempted aggravated murder. Category Two offenses include voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, rape, kidnapping, aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, aggravated arson, and felonious sexual penetration.

Specifically, a juvenile must be tried in adult court if…

They are charged with a Category One offense AND they were 16 or 17 at the time of the alleged offense. R.C. 2152.12(A)(1)(a)(i).

They are charged with a Category One offense AND they were 14 or 15 at the time of the alleged offense AND they previously were adjudicated as delinquent for committing a Category One or Category Two offense and were committed to the legal custody of the Department of Youth Services based on that adjudication. R.C. 2152.12(A)(1)(a)(ii).

They are charged with a Category Two offense (other than kidnapping) AND they were 16 or 17 at the time of the alleged offense AND they are alleged to have used a firearm during the offense. R.C. 2152.10(A)(2)(b).

They are charged with a Category Two offense (other than kidnapping) AND they were 16 or 17 at the time of the alleged offense AND they previously were adjudicated as delinquent for committing a Category One or a Category Two offense and were committed to the legal custody of the Department of Youth Services based on that adjudication. R.C. 2152.10(A)(2)(a).

Discretionary Transfers

A juvenile not subject to a mandatory bindover is eligible for a discretionary bindover if they are charged with a felony and they were 14 or older when they allegedly committed said felony. R.C. 2510(B).

Before considering a discretionary transfer, the juvenile court must order an investigation into the defendant’s social history, education, family situation, and any other factor bearing on whether they are amenable to juvenile rehabilitation, including a mental examination. The investigation must be completed and a report on said investigation must be submitted as soon as possible but not more than 45 calendar days after the investigation is ordered. R.C. 2152.12(C).

SYOs

Under the Serious Youthful Offender (SYO) statute, a juvenile offender can receive a “blended” sentence. They are given a traditional juvenile court disposition and a stayed adult court sentence. The adult sentence is invoked if the following apply:

They are 14 or older and have been admitted to a Department of Youth Services facility, or have criminal charges pending against them. R.C. 2152.14 (E)(1)(b).

They are serving the juvenile portion of the SYO sentence. R.C. 2152.14 (E)(1)(a).

After age 14, they committed a violation of institutional rules that could be charged as a felony or first-degree misdemeanor of violence or “engaged in conduct that creates a substantial risk to the safety or security of the institution, the community, or the victim.” R.C. 2152.14(A)(2).

Their conduct demonstrates that they are “unlikely to be rehabilitated during the remaining period of juvenile jurisdiction.” R.C. 2152.14 (E)(1)(c).

What Happens if an Offender is Tried as a Juvenile?

One who is adjudicated for a serious felony in the juvenile system may be sent to a Department of Youth Services facility. But they can only be incarcerated until they are 21. As explained above, an SYO incarcerated in a DYS facility can have their adult sentence invoked under certain circumstances.

HB 500

What HB 500 Would Do

HB 500 would eliminate the following:

Mandatory bindovers to adult court

Mandatory SYOs

Why We Oppose HB 500

In a nutshell, we oppose HB 500 because it would prolong the already painful court process for victims, waste prosecutors’ time, and allow unjust and even dangerously lenient sentences. The poor timing of this bill increases our frustration. First, we are seeing a crime surge. Slowing down the prosecution of violent juveniles surely will not help with that. Second, Ohio victims are already dealing with SB 256, which retroactively mandates frequent, traumatizing parole hearings for juveniles tried as adults. We find it very sad that new offender-leniency legislation has been introduced immediately after the passage of SB 256. Introducing this legislation–juvenile criminal leniency 2.0– without first addressing SB 256, really seems unfair.

Justice

For a victim to receive justice, their victimizer must be given a sentence that is proportionate to the crime. If one is tried as a juvenile, they can only be incarcerated until their 21st birthday. Depending on how old they were at the time they were first incarcerated, this could mean a sentence of only a couple of years. If the offender was 16 when first incarcerated, and 21 when released, then they would be incarcerated for five years. If one is in juvenile detention from ages 17 to 21, then they would only spend four years incarcerated. If they were almost 18 when first detained, release at age 21 means a sentence of about three years. Three or four years is nowhere near proportionate for some crimes.

While the victims are dead or live lives of pain and suffering, the perpetrator spends only a couple of years in juvenile detention and then walks away with a clean record. This is an abortion of justice. Not only would such a lenient sentence deny justice, but it would demean the crime and devalue the victim.

There have been cases where juvenile offenders who should be prosecuted as adults were kept in the juvenile system and receive grossly lenient sentences.

Charlie Howard

Charlie lost his life during a homophobic attack in 1984. The 23-year-old was thrown into a stream where he later drowned.
Charlie Howard (NOVJM)

District Court Judge David Cox ruled that the killers should be tried as juveniles.

The teens responsible pleaded guilty to manslaughter and were sentenced as juveniles to terms of incarceration not exceeding their 21st birthdays. [One killer] was released after two years and [another killer] was released after 22 months.
Charlie Howard (NOVJM)

John Weed

On September 20, 2019, John Weed went to The Great Frederick Fair in Fredrick, MD, with his family. While at the fair, John was approached by two teens and their friends. A 15-year-old asked him for a dollar. After John said no to the request and began to walk away, the teens followed him. The 16-year-old sucker-punched him in the back of the head. The 15-year-old then punched John with such force that he lost consciousness. As he lay on the ground the 16-year-old spat on him. John died from his injuries a day later.
John Weed’s Killers (NOVJM)

Prosecutors fought for the 15-year-old to be tried as an adult, but a judge ruled to keep him in the juvenile system.

The younger assailant pled guilty to involuntary manslaughter and was sentenced to a long-term behavior modification program. The 16-year-old pleaded guilty to assault and was sentenced to probation and anger management.
John Weed’s Killers (NOVJM)

Safety

If tried as a juvenile, a violent offender will be released at age 21. Proponents of ending life without parole sentences and expanding release opportunities for offenders in the adult system often point out that crime tends to decrease with age. Research does show that crime decreases around age 40. But the same research shows that crime peaks in young adulthood.

Three or four years may not be long enough to reform some criminals (if reform is ever possible). Unfortunately, some offenders have little to no chance of ever reforming, let alone reforming in a couple of years. A couple of years also is not enough time to incapacitate some offenders and protect society from them.

Examples

The National Organization of Victims of Juvenile Murderers lists many examples of “dangerous early releases“–offenders being released early and committing additional crimes. Some of these happened in the juvenile justice system and could have been avoided.

Teen killer Robert Williams was tried and sentenced as a juvenile, which meant he was released when he reached adulthood. He went on to rape, torture, and attempt to murder a woman in her apartment. (Section 1, example 6).
Two defendants–one of whom was involved in a murder– were released early by juvenile supervisors and then murdered a pregnant woman. (Section 1, example 5).

Markus Evans–who already had a violent history– shot his cousin with a shotgun. He was kept in juvenile court and spent 14 months incarcerated. Upon release, he murdered a 17-year-old girl. (Section 1, example 13).
Brian Granger had a juvenile adjudication for a criminal sexual assault on a seven-year-old. He was sent to the Boysville Detention Center and then the Parmenter House. Less than a week after release, he raped and murdered Sandra Nestle. (Section 1, example 11).
Robert Houston was sent to Youth Health Associates, a group home for juvenile sex offenders after he committed two knife-point sexual assaults. While at YHA, he was caught planning and attempting more attacks. He was allowed to stay at YHA and went on to brutally rape and murder a female employee of the home. (Section 1, example 12).
In Cuyahoga County, a juvenile court judge released Herman Duncan, who then murdered 17-year-old Demel Holiday. Duncan had previously committed several assaults, intimidated a witness, and carried a knife, among other crimes. (Section 1, example 3).

Before releasing the 17-year-old delinquent charged with killing Holiday, a juvenile probation officer pleaded with Floyd to lock the boy up. She described the 17-year-old as a physical threat to the community...The boy, who has been on probation since February for several assaults, intimidation of a witness, carrying a knife and counterfeit drugs, had stopped going to school or following the curfew that Floyd had set for him.
After fatal call, judge should resign

A murderer of a 12-year-old girl stayed in juvenile court. Upon release, he committed an armed home invasion. (Section 1, example 26).

Victims and Prosecutors

The transfer process is explained above. Prosecutors should not have to spend all that time doing all that work to ensure that a 17-year-old murderer doesn’t walk out of juvenile detention in a couple of years. With the current crime surge, prosecutors have enough to do. Victims should not have to endure all this just to ensure that the criminal who murdered their loved one or destroyed their life doesn’t get a slap on the wrist. The entire court process, which is already traumatic enough, would be prolonged and victims would live with the fear of the juvenile court judge trying the criminal as a juvenile, and allowing them to go free and potentially harm the victim again at age 21.

Judicial Discretion Hypocrisy

Proponents of HB 500 will say that repealing mandatory bindovers is good because it gives judges discretion. Yet many of the same organizations that support this bill, in the name of judicial discretion, also support SB 256, which limits sentencing options for juveniles tried as adults. SB 256 certainly takes away judicial discretion by capping sentences at 18, 25, or 30 years to life and prohibiting judges from choosing longer sentences that some crimes may warrant. So we can’t trust judges in adult court–including those who sat through lengthy trials and saw all the evidence– but we can trust juvenile court judges?

Advocates of HB 500 will tell us that we can trust judges to determine which juvenile offenders should be tried as adults. Unfortunately some judges don’t make the best choices. We trust that most juvenile court judges would make the best decisions. But repealing mandatory bindovers leaves open the possibility of a judge making the wrong decision and trying an offender as a juvenile when doing so is not only unjust but dangerous. HB 500 would increase the possibility of grossly lenient and even dangerously lenient sentences.

Poor Timing

HB 500 is poor timing for several reasons. First, we are experiencing an increase in crime, including crime committed by juveniles. See Central Ohio police express frustration with juvenile crime and ‘Game over’ Central Ohio police send message to juveniles committing violent crimes.

Under HB 500, juveniles who otherwise would have been automatically tried as adults would now go through the more time-consuming discretionary transfer process before adult prosecution is allowed. Slowing down the process of prosecuting violent criminals, during a crime surge, is not a good idea.

The decision to introduce HB 500 is also inappropriate because it ignores the severe harm inflicted upon victims by SB 256. If you are visiting this website, you are probably familiar with SB 256 or the “Teen Killer Empowerment Act” which reduces sentencing options for juveniles tried as adults. The significant problems caused by SB 256 have yet to be addressed. Passing another law that would significantly impact victims, without first helping victims impacted by SB 256, would be a cruel slap in the face. It would confirm to us that offender advocates are more concerned with giving criminals as best a chance as possible to be released than they are with the victims of these criminals.

Legislatively enacted leniency and early release entitlement for juvenile criminals has grievously harmed victims. Passing yet another law to treat juvenile violent offenders even more leniently without bothering to help the victims harmed by the previously enacted early release law, would be disheartening.