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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT