Legal Issues Relating to Conditions of Confinement for Youth in Adult Facilities

Youth detained in adult facilities under criminal court jurisdiction have the right to humane treatment, mental health & medical care, education, due process protection, and access to their families and the courts. These rights extend to children who are confined in juvenile detention centers, training schools, adult jails and prisons, and other secure institutions. These rights emanate from the U.S. Constitution and federal laws, including the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act; from state constitutions and laws; and from court interpretations of these laws. This provides a summary of the major legal cases that guide the care of juveniles in correctional facilities. 

      Conditions for convicted adult prisoners, and juveniles convicted under adult court jurisdiction only violate the U.S. Constitution where they amount to “cruel and unusual punishment” under the eighth amendment (see Rhodes v. Chapman). Adult facilities must provide for basic needs, including adequate food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and protection from violence. To determine whether a particular condition or practice is cruel or unusual in an adult institution, courts evaluate whether the condition poses a substantial risk of serious harm and whether officials acted with “deliberate indifference” to the rights of the inmate (see Wilson v. Seiter and Farmer v. Brennan).

      Youth may be entitled to additional protection under state laws or regulations. For example, most states have laws giving children a right to treatment and rehabilitation. In addition, many states have laws that require that children be placed in the least restrictive environment consistent with public safety needs or that prohibit the detention of children under juvenile court jurisdiction in adult facilities. Also, some states have laws or regulations setting standards for maximum inmate population sizes, building conditions, health and safety requirements, and programming mandates for facilities where children are detained.

      The determination of whether a condition or practice violates the constitution or other laws depends on the particular case and the specific legal issue raised. Cases do not have identical circumstances. Thus, to assess the risk of lawsuits, correctional authorities must be knowledgeable about the cases most analogous to their situation and must realize that slight differences in facts could change the ruling. For this reason, the case law citations included in this overview as a starting point for research should not be taken as the definitive authority for cases involving similar issues. Also, this overview provides citations only to published cases—that is, cases appearing in the official court reports.

Many issues considered here have also been taken up by the American Bar Association Standards on Interim Status, American Correctional Association Standards for Juvenile Correctional Facilities, National Commission on Correctional Health Care Standards, and U.S. Department of Justice Standards for the Administration of Juvenile Justice. Professional standards reflect the collective wisdom of professionals in the field, and courts often use them as a guide for determining whether laws have been violated.

Complying with professional standards does not insulate facilities from liability. Many facilities have been successfully sued, even though they complied with the standards of a professional organization. This situation may occur when the standards do not address a particular issue or when the standards require only that there be an institutional policy on the issue without specifying its contents. The shortcomings of many commonly used standards prompted the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to call for the development of performance-based standards that specify the outcomes facilities should achieve (Parent and Leiter, 1994).

The constitutional standard for measuring violations under the due process clause, commonly used for children and pretrial detainees, is whether the detainees are being held under conditions that “amount to punishment” (see Gary H. v. Hegstrom and Bell v. Wolfish). These standards give more protection to children than would be afforded to convicted adult prisoners under the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the eighth amendment. In adult prison cases, inmates must show that the deprivation was sufficiently serious to constitute cruel and unusual punishment in that it involves the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain” and that the official acted with “deliberate indifference” (see Wilson v. Seiter and Farmer v. Brennan). The due process clause is a less rigorous standard and broadens the rights of juveniles.



This overview focuses primarily on federal civil rights litigation. State laws may create additional liabilities, eliminate certain defenses (such as immunity) for defendants, and determine who will be reimbursed or indemnified in damage cases. For example, lawsuits may be filed under state tort law or other specific statutes such as the federal Individuals With Disabilities Education Act.

Conditions of Confinement

Numerous studies have examined the conditions of confinement & issues faced by juveniles in adult facilities. Research has shown that juveniles in adult facilities are at much greater risk of harm than youth housed in juvenile facilities. The suicide rate for juveniles held in jails is five times the rate in the general youth population & 8 times the rate for adolescents in juvenile detention facilities (Community Research Center, 1980).

      Forst & colleagues (Community Research Center 1989) reported that, although youth in adult and juvenile facilities were equally likely to be victims of property crime while incarcerated, juveniles in adult facilities were more likely to be violently victimized. In 1988, 47% of juveniles in prisons (compared with 37% of youth in juvenile facilities) suffered violent victimization, including violence at the hands of staff. Sexual assault was 5 times more likely in prison, beatings by staff nearly twice as likely, & attacks with weapons were almost 50% more common in adult facilities. Clearly, safely housing juveniles in adult facilities & protecting younger inmates from predatory, older inmates are important issues for correctional administrators.

Policy Issues Addressed by the Study

      The growing number of juveniles admitted to adult facilities raises a number of important questions for correctional administrators & policymakers. This research provides key information for decision makers by documenting the number & profiles of youth in adult facilities, the legal & administrative processes by which they are waived to the adult court system, the issues faced by adult correctional systems handling juveniles, & those faced by juveniles who are confined in adult facilities. The specific questions to be answered by this project are as follows:

• What is the extent of confinement of juveniles in federal, state & local facilities? What is the legal basis for allowing juveniles convicted as adults to be committed directly to the adult system?

      An updated national census is presented of those states permitting juveniles to be charged & convicted as adults, housed during pretrial status in adult pretrial facilities (jails), & sentenced to adult facilities (prisons or jails). Moreover, a summary of recent legislation adopted by the states is provided.

• What types of adult facilities are used to house juveniles & what is the legal basis for such commitments?

      Juveniles are confined in a wide variety of adult facilities. Juveniles, if charged as adults (and for other reasons), can be housed in adult facilities awaiting the court’s disposition. As shown earlier, a far greater number of juveniles are admitted to jails than to state & federal prison facilities. Youth may be placed in jails because they are being prosecuted as adults or because the jurisdiction does not have a juvenile facility for those who require secure confinement while awaiting the court’s final disposition of the charges. Distinctions in the legal basis for placing juveniles in adult correctional facilities are discussed.

• What happens to juveniles in the adult system? Are they placed in separate areas or allowed to be housed with adults?

Sight & sound separation of adults & juveniles at all stages of judicial processing is mandated by Congress for all states under the Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) of 1974, as amended. This report examines to what degree & under what circumstances this mandate is adhered to when minors are sentenced as adults. Further, the ability of mixed-age facilities to provide required programs & services to minors while maintaining separation from adults is discussed.

• Do juveniles in adult facilities receive unique treatment, education, job skills training, & other services?

      Despite being placed in adult facilities, minors retain special civil rights to education, vocational training, & other services that may require additional or special programs. These rights have consequences in staffing & access to appropriate programs that are responsive to the developmental, physical, social, psychological/emotional, educational, & family needs that are unique to adolescents.

• Does the presence of minors in a mixed-age facility pose unique management problems with respect to disciplinary incidents?

Practitioners have often asserted that younger offenders are more difficult to manage than older inmates. In some jurisdictions, attempts have been made to house youth with older inmates who will provide a calming influence on juveniles, especially those with long sentences. However, research has shown that juveniles in adult populations are more likely to commit suicide & to be victims of violence & sexual assaults. Transferred juveniles create new problems for the adult corrections system, including development of treatment & reintegrative services & protection from predatory inmates. The way in which these disciplinary issues are managed is a key discussion.

• What are the alternative strategies for housing juvenile offenders sentenced to long terms in adult facilities?

Some juveniles convicted of violent crimes are now facing extremely long, life, or death sentences. This bleak future may create additional disciplinary & mental health issues that must be managed by correctional administrators & staff.

Juvenile VS Adult Justice

[Note: The following information is from the PBS.org webpage]

Each state has its own distinct juvenile justice system with its own laws and practices. This chart outlines some of the broad underlying beliefs that distinguish the juvenile justice system from the criminal justice system. For further details about a particular state's juvenile court system, see the National Center for Juvenile Justice's "State Juvenile Justice Profiles." 

Juvenile Justice System

The underlying rationales of the juvenile court system are that youth are developmentally different from adults and that their behavior is malleable. Rehabilitation and treatment, in addition to community protection, are considered to be primary and viable goals. Limitations are placed on public access to juvenile records because of the belief that juvenile offenders can be successfully rehabilitated, and to avoid their unnecessary stigmatization. Court proceedings may be confidential to protect privacy. The juvenile justice system follows a psychological casework approach, taking into account a detailed assessment of the youth's history in order to meet his or her specific needs. The juvenile offender faces a hearing, rather than a trial, which incorporates his social history as well as legal factors.

Law enforcement has the option of preventative detention--detaining a youth for his own protection or the community's protection. Not all states afford juveniles the right to a jury trial. A juvenile offender is judged "delinquent" rather than "guilty." Because of the individualized nature of the juvenile justice system, sentencing varies and may cover a wide range of community-based and residential options. The disposition is based on the individual's offense history and the severity of the offense, and includes a significant rehabilitation component. The disposition can be for an unspecified period of time; the court can send a youth to a certain facility or program until it is determined he is rehabilitated, or until he reaches the age of majority. The disposition may also include a restitution component and can be directed at people other than the offender, for example his parents.

Parole combines surveillance with activities to reintegrate the juvenile into the community.

Criminal Justice System

Rehabilitation is not considered a primary goal in the criminal justice system, which operates under the assumption that criminal sanctions should be proportional to the offense. Deterrence is seen as a successful outcome of punishment. Open public access to criminal records is required, and all court proceedings are open to the public.

Defendants in the criminal justice system are put on trial, which is based largely on legal facts. Defendants have the right to apply for bond or bail. All defendants have a constitutional right to a jury trial. A defendant is found "innocent" or "guilty." The offender is sentenced to a specified period of time which is determined by the severity of the offense, as well as the defendant's criminal history. Parole is primarily based on surveillance and monitoring of illicit behavior.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The century old idea in the United States that children and adolescents are less culpable and more able to be rehabilitated than adults who commit crimes has been giving way to a harsher view in recent years. Here's an overview of the evolution of society's attitudes on dealing with juveniles who commit serious crimes.

In 18th century America, little distinction was made in the criminal culpability of children versus adults. Juveniles as young as age seven could be tried and sentenced in criminal courts. As psychologists and sociologists began to recognize the emerging notion of adolescence as a developmentally distinct period of life, reformers argued that children should be removed from adult prisons.

In 1825, the Society for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency founded the New York House of Refuge, the first institution designed to accommodate juvenile delinquents. Many cities and states soon followed this example and set up similar institutions. Progressive era reformers wanted to attack what they believed were the roots of juvenile delinquency--a lack of moral education and standards--and advocated that juvenile institutions include a significant educational and rehabilitative component. For their efforts, the earliest juvenile justice reformers were known as "child savers."

The child savers' advocacy resulted in the establishment of the first juvenile court in Cook County, Illinois, in 1899. The court was established under the British legal doctrine of parens patriae -- "the State as parent" -- which was interpreted to mean that it was the state's duty not only to protect the public interest in juvenile offender cases, but also to intervene and serve as the guardian of the interests of the children involved. As opposed to the adversarial adult criminal system, where the state's role was to prosecute the offender, the juvenile court had a more benevolent mission: it was designed to be flexible, informal and to tailor to a juvenile's individual needs, with the ultimate goal of rehabilitation. The process was subject to strict confidentiality in order to avoid any unnecessary stigmatization of minors. Because its goal of rehabilitation was not considered to be punitive, the court had no due process protections, and had jurisdiction over both criminal and status offenders (a category which applies only to minors and includes offenses such as vagrancy and truancy.) Judges played a paternal role, and were afforded tremendous discretion in order to achieve the goal of individualized rehabilitative justice. By 1925, 48 states had established a juvenile court system, which operated quietly until mid-century.

During the 1960s, civil libertarians began to raise concerns about the progressive era model of juvenile justice. They argued that despite rhetoric to the contrary, juveniles within the system were not actually being rehabilitated, but rather warehoused in institutions not much different from an adult prisons. If juveniles were going to be treated as adults in the sentencing phase, the advocates argued, they should also be accorded the due process protections afforded to adults in court. They also challenged the broad discretion given to juvenile court judges. In a series of rulings during the 1960s and 1970s, The U.S. Supreme Court agreed; "There is evidence, in fact, that there may be grounds for concern that the child receives the worst of both worlds: that he gets neither the protections accorded to adults nor the solicitous care and regenerative treatment postulated for children," wrote Justice Abe Fortas in Kent v. United States. In decisions such as Kent, In re Gault and In re Winship, the Supreme Court ruled that juveniles must be afforded due process protections including: formal hearings when facing waiver to criminal court; protection against self-incrimination; the rights to notice of charges, counsel, and cross-examination of witnesses; and adherence to the "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" judicial standard.

In the early 1970s, several class-action lawsuits attacked the conditions and policies of the juvenile institutions, alleging cruel and unusual punishment. Social critics advocated deinstitutionalization and argued for more preventative and community-based programs to assail the roots of juvenile delinquency, particularly in urban areas. In 1974, Congress passed the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, which still governs the juvenile justice system today. The act required the separation of juvenile offenders from adult offenders, and the deinstitutionalization of status offenders. A 1980 amendment mandated that juveniles could not be placed in adult jails, with a few exceptions. The 1974 act also created the federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) and offered grants to encourage states to develop community-based programs as alternatives to institutionalization. Law enforcement experimented with the introduction of community-based correctional facilities, such as group homes and halfway houses.

However, this preventative approach to the delinquency problem was shortlived. In the mid-1970s, as the media began to highlight rising violent crime rates, the American public demanded the conservative "get tough" approach to crime still widely endorsed today. State legislatures reacted to the public's demands for accountability by passing more punitive juvenile justice laws. The conservative trend continued in the 1990s: almost every state passed laws making it easier to try juveniles in adult criminal courts; 31 states passed laws expanding sentencing options; 47 states modified confidentiality provisions for juvenile courts; and 22 states passed laws increasing the victim's role in juvenile court processing.

More than any time in recent history, the system is turning back toward treating juvenile offenders like adults.