fair, efficient, and effective procedures. Departures from established principles of due process have frequently resulted not in enlightened procedure, but in arbitrariness.” Id. at 18-19. {¶ 57} After today, in Ohio, an alleged juvenile offender will once again be subject to mandatory transfer out of juvenile court to face an adult criminal conviction on a mere showing of probable cause to believe that the child committed the offense charged, regardless of whether the child is amenable to rehabilitation and treatment in the juvenile-justice system. To deprive a child of his or her liberty with such limited procedure falls short of the “procedural regularity and exercise of care implied in the phrase ‘due process.’ ” Id. at 27-28. {¶ 58} A ma 1 S.Ct. 2394, 180 L.Ed.2d 310 (2011) (<HOLDING>); Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 570-571, 125
holding that the admission of a statement obtained in violation of miranda v arizona 384 us 436 86 sct 1602 16 led2d 694 1966 resulted in harmless error because the defendant repeated the substance of the statement in a later admissible statement holding miranda inapplicable because defendant not in custody holding that police must consider the age of a juvenile suspect when determining whether the juvenile is in custody for purposes of miranda warnings see miranda v arizona 384 us 436 86 sct 1602 16 led2d 694 1966 holding that because the fifth amendment protects against the use of coerced statements at trial not mere compulsion a violation of the requirements set forth in miranda v arizona 384 us 436 86 sct 1602 16 led2d 694 1966 did not give rise to a  1983 claim recognizing miranda v arizona 384 us 436 468 86 sct 1602 1624 16 led2d 694 1966