NCJ Number
156844
Date Published
1989
Length
0 pages
Annotation
In this video, two of the Nation's leading juvenile attorneys discuss the constitutional requirements and liability issues associated with juvenile detention and corrections, based upon recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
Abstract
The format for the video consists of lectures by the two attorneys, followed by questions from the audience and answers by the lecturers. The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Canton v. Harris is first considered. The Court held in this case that the inadequacy of police training may serve as a basis for section 1983 liability only where the failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of persons with whom the police come into contact. The lecturer then applies this decision to juvenile corrections. Measures of "deliberate indifference" are also discussed. Turner v. Safely is discussed as well. The Court ruled that the "reasonable/rational relationship" test (not "strict scrutiny") is the proper examination for determining whether prison rules and regulations violate inmates' constitutional rights. Other U.S. Supreme Court cases discussed are Daniels v. Williams, Davidson v. Cannon, Pembaur v. Cincinnati, Doe v. Arguelles, Board of Pardons v. Allen, and Desheney v. Winnebego County Department of Social Services. Legal parameters are discussed for offender classification, health and mental health care, visitor access to inmates, programming, inmate classification and screening, employee training and supervision, environmental conditions, and restraint.