“Shynerra’s Law”: The First Step, but Not the Last Step in Reforming Juvenile Violence

Now that Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland has signed “Shynerra’s Law,” juveniles needing protection from other juveniles in that state can obtain restraining orders that might have prevented Antonio Rogers from murdering Shynerra Grant in 2005. Judges now have another means of safeguarding the most vulnerable. Shynerra’s Law demonstrates progress: legislators have recognized that threatened adolescents deserve at least as much care from the court as threatened adults already get.

However, even with this monumental leap forward, a restraining order is just a piece of paper. Someone determined to violate it will do so. A judge’s signature and possible jail time will not deter those resolving to harm others. While Shynerra’s Law adds a preventative tool where none existed before, it cannot be the last word.

As a legal scholar and divorce mediator for eight years and a juvenile mentor for 13, I know the rich history of juvenile court—what it was, and what it still is. Juvenile court gives judges a unique opportunity to intervene before a teen ventures too far down the wrong path. Shynerra’s Law aims to stop violence, and, if used properly, the juvenile court has the muscle to protect potential victims even more.

When the Chicago juvenile court began in 1899 and similar courts were established in Denver and other cities, they weren’t much of a court at all by today’s standards. The judge didn’t sit on an elevated bench. He usually didn’t wear a robe. No lawyers stood next to their jumpsuit-clad clients.

The original juvenile courts grew out of the idea that children needed rehabilitation and treatment to become productive citizens. The judges were, in essence, counselors and teachers in a parental role. Many of those early courts had nearly non-existent recidivism rates, precisely because they focused on the best interests of the child, rather than locking him up for a certain term with no preparation for reentering society.

Here’s my question: What if a judge could, upon issuing a juvenile restraining order, also assign that teen to receive the same social services that an adolescent on probation would be getting? Why wait for a crime to be committed when the juvenile court has the authority to act parentally and could avert a tragedy instead of just reacting after someone is maimed or killed?

Criminal court judges cannot usually mandate many conditions for adults before a crime has been committed, but juvenile court judges can. Judges in adult court are not meant to be caretakers. Juvenile judges must, in the words of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas, ask, “What is [the juvenile offender], how has he become what he is, and what had best be done in his interest and in the interest of the state to save him from a downward career?” Fortas got it right. Rehabilitating teenagers before their problems escalate benefits all of society, not just the adolescents themselves.

Shynerra’s Law is a good start, but if Rogers ignored a no-contact order, he likely would have disregarded a restraining order also, even if one had been available to Grant. We need to take the law a step further and use the unique authority of the juvenile court proactively to prevent the harm that a mere piece of paper cannot stop.