Saturday, April 12, 2008

Juvenile Justice:  Question on CPD Procedure

Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati

This comment form allows the public to submit questions about published police procedure.  The following is my comment about how juveniles are processed regarding interrogations.

Procedure to be Commented On: 12.900

Title of Procedure: Processing Juvenile Offenders

Comments: 

According to this procedure (D.8.a.1):

==
1) Notify the parent/guardian when detaining a juvenile for “in-custody” questioning.

a) “In-custody” means taking a juvenile to a police facility, detention facility, hospital, or other place where the juvenile is not free to leave.
==

Will the CPD interrogate a juvenile before that child’s parent has had a chance to visit with the juvenile, and before that parent has had a chance to get legal representation?  The procedure is unclear on the specific order of operation.

Thanks for the clarification.

Socializer!

Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.

If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.

anon says:
12 Apr 2008  at  10:21 pm | #

I don’t know what this is about - but i like the topic for a change.

ohio needs a law that says that any info provided by a juvenile without a parent or attorney present cannot be used against them in court and is fruit of the poisonous tree.  period.

and, schools should be bound, statewide, to the same doctrine - no punishments for info provided without counsel of parent or attorney (schools are worse that police on the refusal to advise students of their rights and then issuing harsh and life changing punishments due to disclosures provided under duress and through intimidation...)

says:
13 Apr 2008  at  12:02 pm | #

To protect your child from police abuse in this area and also to protect yourself at all times, there is one rule that needs to be followed:

DO NOT TALK TO POLICE WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY AND EVEN THEN DO NOT TALK TO POLICE!

It is very simple rule but for some reason people are afraid to follow it. What is to be gained by talking to police? When you have an attorney, you let the attorney talk. If an individual lies, intentionally or not, he has put himself in jeopardy. Police are allowed to lie. Why would one want to play on this uneven field?

Chaz says:
15 Apr 2008  at  07:01 am | #

I have a better idea....

Don’t do anything that gets you in trouble.

After all, people are allowed to be law abiding.

(patiently waiting for the “cops are crroked and will pull kids in just to harass them” defense)

says:
15 Apr 2008  at  04:11 pm | #

Chaz,

Do you deny that juveniles have ever admitted in interrogations to crimes they did not commit?

Who Cares? says:
19 Apr 2008  at  06:26 am | #

Dean,

I don’t know about Chaz, but I do.  I have known plenty of juveniles who have lied to get their way out of trouble.  I have never encountered one who lied about a crime or action they did not commit. 

I agree one-hundred percent with Chaz.  If one doesn’t do anything to get in trouble, one does not have to worry about it.  Of course, your response will be that mine and Chaz’s thoughts are off-topic or some other balderdash side-step. 

But try this on for size.  Maybe if the juvenile in question paid more attention in school they would realize what their rights are in these situations.  The Bill of Rights gives you certain defenses and rights not to incriminate one’s self.  So I don’t think your question in the article is that off-base. 

However, as a teacher, would you want parental permission to interrogate a student about an incident as anon is necessary?  I think that is ridiculous.  Per the acutal topic of conversation, the policy states that the police only has to notify a parent/guardian that they are questioning, not that they need permission.  Allowing a parent to meet with a child prior to questioning is ridiculous in my opinion.  Who knows what the parent may advise their child to say.  While we have a right not to incriminate ourselves, we do not have a right to lie.

says:
19 Apr 2008  at  07:20 am | #

Who Cares?

This comment is a bit premature, but I have not had time to flesh it out.

A few years ago, I co-hosted a WAIF radio show called “Real Talk Live,” with a guy named Derrick Blassingame.  We did a juvenile justice show, and he had booked a guest who worked for an area juvenile justice advocacy organization.

I remember reviewing her materials, which (at least per my memory) appeared credible and well-documented.  They showed juveniles admitting to crimes they did not commit during interrogations before parents even knew they’d been picked up.

Why would someone admit to a crime he or she did not commit?  To end the interrogation, which uses psychologically trying tactics on child-minds.

I post this admittedly without finding docs to back my claims—but that is the place from where I come on this topic, and I have not had time to dig up that old information.  I haven’t even talked with Derrick for about two years.

says:
19 Apr 2008  at  07:21 am | #

By the way, I have received no response per the original question.