Characteristics of Juveniles Housed in Adult Jails and Prisons, part 1

A current and accurate enumeration of juveniles confined in adult prisons and jails is essential to understand the issue of youth in adult facilities. Data on youthful offenders in national reports were not sufficiently complete or comprehensive to achieve the level of detail required for this study. Consequently, a comprehensive national survey of adult jail and prison systems was required. Two survey instruments were developed to obtain data on youthful offenders, one for adult state prison systems and one for state and local adult correctional facilities. Both surveys were modeled after the Bureau of Justice Statistics correctional facility surveys. The most critical assumption in developing the surveys was a precise definition of a youthful offender. For these surveys, a “youthful offender” was defined as a person age 17 or younger. In most states, 18-year-old offenders are considered adults and are normally tried in adult court. By focusing on the population age 17 and younger, the surveys concentrated on offenders generally considered juveniles and whose presence in adult correctional facilities was exceptional. 

      The purpose of the correctional system-level survey was to collect data on the number and characteristics of all youthful offenders incarcerated in a state’s prison system, as well as to compare these characteristics with those of the adult offenders incarcerated in the system. The survey collected data on the custodial status of the juvenile residential population, housing patterns, offense background, race/ethnicity, age, length of stay, disciplinary actions, programs, litigation, health services, and capacity.

      The facility-level survey was intended to provide specific information on the actual conditions of confinement in prisons and data about some of the large jail systems. This survey asked questions about facility characteristics, housing patterns, offense history, race/ethnicity, age, length of stay, disciplinary actions, programs, litigation, and health services. Although the facility survey addresses many of the issues identified in the system

survey, it is designed to give a better sense of the “fit” between the youth and the adults in these institutions.

      Both the system- and facility-level surveys were sent to each state prison system, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and 19 jail systems. The selected jails included all the major metropolitan jail systems and a sample of small and medium-size jails throughout the country. In total, 70 surveys were distributed. Surveys were mailed in September 1998, and a followup survey was mailed in January 1999. Participating state and local systems were instructed to complete the system-level survey and disseminate the facility-level survey to any facilities in their jurisdiction that housed youthful offenders. The number of participants in the facility-level survey was dependent on the number of adult facilities identified by jurisdictions as housing juveniles, the number of such facilities to which the jurisdictions mailed the facility survey, and the willingness of these particular facilities to respond to the survey.

      All 50 states, 3 of the 19 jail systems (Los Angeles County, New York City, and Philadelphia), and the District of Columbia responded to the system-level survey, and 196 correctional agencies responded to the facility-level survey. Despite efforts to solicit their participation, the Federal Bureau of Prisons and other selected jail systems refused to take part in this research. Consequently, these results are not representative of the total population of juveniles in adult prisons.

State Statutes and Juvenile Transfer Laws

During the past decade, most states have adopted legislation that permits the transfer of youth to adult courts to be tried as adults. Usually these laws target serious crimes and permit the age of jurisdiction to be lowered. Relative to the issue of juveniles in adult correctional facilities, these laws often become the basis for a juvenile to be housed in a jail if charged and awaiting court disposition or in a prison if the juvenile has been convicted and sentenced.

Between 1992 and 1996, 45 states and the District of Columbia made substantive changes to their laws targeting juveniles who commit violent or serious crimes (Torbet et al., 1996). All but 10 states adopted or modified laws making it easier to prosecute juveniles in criminal court. Nearly half of the states (24) added crimes to the list of offenses excluded from juvenile court jurisdiction, and 36 states and the District of Columbia excluded certain categories of juveniles from juvenile court jurisdiction. The list of offenses considered serious enough to warrant the transfer of youth as young as age 14 included murder, aggravated assault, armed robbery, and rape as well as less serious and violent offenses such as aggravated stalking, lewd and lascivious assault or other acts in the presence of a child, sodomy, oral copulation, and violation of drug laws near a school or park. Since 1992, 13 states and the District of Columbia have added or modified statutes that provide for a mandatory minimum term of incarceration for juveniles adjudicated delinquent for certain serious and violent crimes.

A legal method used to try a youth as an adult is accomplished by lowering the age of jurisdiction. For example, seven states (Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, South Carolina, and Texas) set their age of jurisdiction at 16, whereas three (Connecticut, New York, and North Carolina) have lowered the age to 15. Missouri lowered the age for transfer to criminal court to 12 for any felony. In all but two states (Nebraska and New York), a juvenile court judge can waive jurisdiction over a case and transfer youth to the adult court for certain crimes and at certain ages. The number of juvenile court cases transferred to criminal court increased 71 percent between 1985 and 1994 and 42 percent from 1990 to 1994 (Butts, 1996).


Although the legal basis for waiver varies from state to state, the trend across the country is to expand the use of waivers. This expansion is being accomplished by casting wider nets for waiver by lowering the age of adult jurisdiction, by adding to the list of applicable crimes, and by adopting more procedures by which youth can be transferred to adult court (e.g., through the discretion of the prosecutor or through legislative mandate). Waiver provisions are often applied to nonviolent offenders and, in some states, running away from a juvenile institution is grounds for prosecution in adult court (Shauffer et al., 1993).

Issues Arising in Institutional Litigation, part 8 of 8: Safety

Safety

Inmates have a right to personal safety under Youngberg v. Romeo, Jackson v. Fort Stanton State Hospital & Training School, Smith v. Wade, Farmer v. Brennan, Ramos v. Lamm, and Harris v. Maynard. A growing body of case law explores the limits of the constitutional right to safety and the liability of institutional officials for the failure to protect vulnerable inmates (see Young v. Quinlan, Redman v. County of San Diego, LaMarca v. Turner, Miller v. Glanz, Luciano v. Galindo, Sampley v. Ruettgers, and Hill v. Shelander).

In Hudson v. McMillan, the U.S. Supreme Court held that minor injuries suffered by a handcuffed, shackled inmate beaten by three Louisiana prison guards constituted a violation of the eighth amendment. The supervisor on duty had watched the beating and told the guards “not to have too much fun.” The Court held that in measuring the objective component of a violation of the eighth amendment, courts should be guided by contemporary standards of decency (Wilson v. Seiter) and, when officials act sadistically, those standards are always violated whether significant injury is evident or not (see Felix v. McCarthy on denying qualified immunity to prison guards in connection with an unprovoked attack on an inmate, even though the injury to the inmate was slight, and Valencia v. Wiggins on denying qualified immunity to a jailer who bashed an inmate’s head against cell bars and used a choke hold that rendered the inmate unconscious).


It is difficult to say when violence reaches constitutional proportions. A California court ruled in Inmates of Riverside County Jail v. Clark that violence had reached an unacceptable level when there was a one in three chance that an inmate would become a victim of violence. In LaMarca v. Turner, the court examined reports showing that the prison superintendent was aware of the level of violence and the conditions contributing to it without acting to remedy the situation.


There has been less litigation over safety issues in juvenile facilities, but the same principles apply; facilities must protect children from violence and sexual assault by other children (see Guidry v. Rapides Parish School Board and C.J.W. by and through L.W. v. State). In monitoring safety issues in juvenile institutions, it is crucial to examine reports of violence or potential violence from individuals, the number and characteristics of violent incidents, and the level of fear in the institution. Another safety issue that, fortunately, arises less frequently is staff brutality. There are few cases on this issue, but further research on the use of excessive force would be valuable.