TESTIMONY ON SUB. S.B.3

June 5, 2001

I am representing the Juvenile Justice Coalition.  The Juvenile Justice Coalition, which has reviewed Sub. S.B. 3, is a private, statewide, non-profit organization formed in 1990 whose mission is to promote effective programs, equitable treatment of youth and public policy that will reduce juvenile delinquency in Ohio.  The organization supports juvenile sex offenders being held accountable for their actions and being treated for their behavior, in order to reduce the likelihood of reoffending.  We support protecting community members from potential sexual victimization, even when the perpetrator is a juvenile.  However, we oppose applying adult measures to a juvenile population, due to their developmental stage and the effects of their own victimization.  Research has shown that juvenile sex offenders who receive adequate treatment have a low rate of sexual reoffending (Juveniles Who Have Sexually Offended: A Review of the Professional Literature, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, March 2001, page 31).  We think that this bill is too broad in its impact and will undermine the ability to provide treatment for a juvenile sex offender in the community either as an alternative to state commitment or a supplement to ODYS, following release from an institution.

Notification.  We are opposed to the broad notification required in the bill.  Peer pressure on children by other children can be detrimental to effective programming. Broad notification will have an unintended consequence for families of juvenile sex offenders, when the entire community is notified.  Foster families and even natural families will have a hard time taking a juvenile sex offenders back into their homes, when the entire community is notified. Group homes in neighborhoods which treat sexual offenders and even residential centers with sexual offender programs have a high likelihood of community opposition to their existence if all neighbors and every day care center in the county are notified. Where will these juveniles go for treatment?  NIMBY or not in my backyard will rule.  We agree that the sheriff, police and principal of the school should be notified, but urge the committee to delete the rest of the notification list.

Offenses Included.  We are opposed to the inclusion of so many offenses for registration purposes.  We believe that only the most serious felony 1 and 2 offenses should be included.  We urge the committee to remove all felony 3, 4 and 5 offenses from the sexually oriented offense list.

Legal Representation.  Since a juvenile sex offense may have a lifelong impact on a child, those who are charged with sex offenses should have mandatory legal representation at all stages in the processing.

Cost. The procedures outlined in the bill will add a financial burden (unfunded mandates) to many county and state agencies, including the juvenile courts and the law enforcement system.

Thorough Consideration.  We believe that this type of bill, which may have lifelong impact on children, should have more thorough consideration by the Ohio General Assembly, including expert testimony on the research related to juvenile sex offending.

In closing, I would like to state that this is a very difficult, complicated piece of legislation to understand.  One of the serious problems in the juvenile justice system is differential processing from county to county of juvenile offenders.  Because of the complexities of this legislation, the likelihood that all counties will implement the provisions in the same way are slim.  We urge the committee to give this legislation further hearings.

Thank you for your consideration of these requests.

Copyright © 2001 Juvenile Justice Coalition