Ohio - A Review of the Juvenile Justice System (From Legislative Monitoring - Case Studies From the National Legislature Internship Program, P 11-36, 1980 - See NCJ-72412)

• NCJ Number: 72413
• Author(s): J Burley
• Date Published: 1980
• Length: 26 pages
• Sale Source: Superintendent of Documents, GPO
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: *This document is currently unavailable from NCJRS. NCJ-72413 available on microfiche as NCJ-72412.

Annotation

Based on observation of two Ohio counties, this study analyzes the State's juvenile justice system, with emphasis on its consistency with proposed national standards.

Abstract

The study focused on diversion programs and deinstitutionalization of status offenders, which have been proposed in American Bar Association (ABA) standards and in other sources. One county (Franklin) studied was urban, had a separate juvenile court, and used a juvenile detention center. The other county (Clinton) was rural, used a court of multiple jurisdiction, and detained juveniles in the county jail. Key juvenile justice system personnel were interviewed in each county. Findings showed that Ohio law does not clearly define the juvenile justice system. Statutes and rules of court procedure deal with many of the same issues and often use identical language, but they also conflict in some important respects. Judges usually argue that the rules take precedence, while the general assembly urges that the statutes take precedence. Franklin County's system closely resembles the system created by the Ohio Revised Code and the Rules of Juvenile Procedure. In addition, procedural protections and compliance with State law appear sound. Problem are as include the stage at which a complaint is filed, lack of written guidelines for operation of the intake diversion mechanism, and lack of a uniform basis for decisions in juvenile cases. Clinton County's system differs significantly from the system created by State law. Some of Ohio counties' problems could be remedied by strict adherence to existing State laws. In other cases, use of the standards proposed by the ABA and the National Advisory committee would be useful. For example, current Ohio law cannot deal with inappropriate detention of juveniles. Nevertheless, new legislation which follows the national standard will be of little use if it conflicts with court rules and is therefore ignored by Ohio's courts. An appendix presents interview results and commentary. For related case studies, see NCJ 72414-16.