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
system
 Provide
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 innocence
 The
right to counsel
 The
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 restraint
 More
than mere deference to law
enforcement
 Preferred
practice to hold the hearing
prior to restraining the defendant
8
Legal Implications:
9
Chains Hurt the Constitution

But kids don’t have the right to trial by jury

Kids do have
 Presumption

of innocence
 Right
to the effective assistance of counsel
 Right
to due process
Kids who are shackled in court
 Do
not present themselves as well
 Cannot
effectively communicate with their counsel
 Cannot
effectively communicate with the court
 Are
 Do
not able to listen and absorb information
not feel like they are being treated fairly
Adolescent Development:
Chains Hurt Children
10
It 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 selfdevelopment and productive community
participation.”—CWLA, January 2015
Adolescent 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
11
Who Limits the Use of
Restraints & Shackles?


All Common Pleas
Courts in Ohio
ODRC

ODYS

ODMHAS

ODE

ODH

ODJFS

ODD
12
22 States & D.C. limit the
use of restraints in juvenile
court
East Coast
West Coast
Mid-West
Connecticut
Alaska
Idaho
Florida
California
Indiana
Maryland
New Mexico
Illinois
Nevada
Nebraska
Oregon
North Dakota
Utah
Pennsylvania
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
New York
North Carolina
South Carolina
Vermont
Washington D.C.
Washington
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?
15

‘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