ILNews

2 Ind. juvenile facilities rank high in DOJ report

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Two Indiana juvenile facilities are cited in a new U.S. Department of Justice report for having high rates of sexual victimization among the young offenders.

The report identified 13 facilities as having a high rate of victimization, which includes Pendleton Juvenile Correctional Facility and the all-female Indianapolis Juvenile Correctional Facility. More than 36 percent of juvenile offenders at Pendleton reported sexual victimization, which is more than double the national average. Almost 23 percent of youth at the Indianapolis Juvenile Correctional Facility reported any sexual victimization while in the facility.

Those numbers are quite high, especially when compared to the 12 percent of youth in facilities around the country who reported experiencing one or more incidents of sexual victimization by another youth or staff member.

The numbers come from a study released Thursday by the DOJ's Bureau of Justice Statistics that focused on larger facilities - both state and nonstate - that typically hold adjudicated youth for longer periods. More than 9,000 youth answered questionnaires using a computer and audio instructions about sexual incidents while in the facilities between June 2008 and April 2009. The DOJ estimates there are more than 26,000 adjudicated youth held in state operated or large nonstate facilities.

The DOJ defined sexual victimization as any forced sexual activity with another youth and all sexual activity with a staff member.

The report breaks down victimization by another youth or by staff. Seven percent of Pendleton youth reported sexual victimization by another youth; nearly 32 percent claimed they were victimized by staff. At the Indianapolis facility, more than 16 percent said they were victimized by another youth and almost 9 percent claimed to be victimized by staff.

In 2007, St. Joseph Juvenile Judge Peter Nemeth ordered a review and stopped sending females to the Indianapolis Juvenile Correctional Facility because of issues such as inadequate staffing, claims of sexual misconduct, and a lack of educational or vocational programs. At that time, the facility housed both males and females, but the Indiana Department of Correction in March 2008 made the facility all-female and relocated the males to other sites. Female youths from the Indianapolis facility were moved to the Madison facility in November 2009.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT