Youth Justice Advocates Condemn Transfer of Children to Angola Prison
BATON ROUGE, La. — Youth justice advocates are denouncing the transfer of children to the Louisiana State Penitentiary known as Angola Prison. The state confirmed yesterday that it transferred the first group of children in juvenile custody to the prison’s former death row.
Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards announced the plan in July.
Angola is the largest maximum-security adult prison in the United States. It transformed from a slave plantation to a camp for mostly Black laborers exploited by convict leasing, before becoming a prison. For over a century, Angola has been a site of human rights abuses, which continue to this day.
A federal judge denied an emergency motion in mid-September to stop the state’s plan to move children involved in the juvenile justice system to the Angola site. Kids in Louisiana’s juvenile justice system are not charged with or convicted of crimes, but are adjudicated as delinquent in a civil proceeding.
Despite permitting the transfer, Judge Shelly Dick found in her order that the state would not transfer kids to the site at Angola “until the facility is ready, properly staffed, and can fully provide educational, medical, mental health, recreational, and food services,” on-site.
The underlying lawsuit is still pending.
No governor has moved kids adjudicated as delinquent and in juvenile custody to the grounds of an adult maximum-security prison. Federal law prohibits any interaction between youth and incarcerated adults — known as sight and sound restrictions — because of the risk of psychological and physical harm to the children. At Angola, teens will be held in windowless single cells with floor-to-ceiling metal bars.
In his declaration to the court from August 18, Alex A., the young plaintiff, said the possibility of being moved to Angola caused him to pull out his hair and worsened his anxiety and sleeping troubles.
“I am terrified of being moved to Angola,” he wrote. “I do not believe I have done anything to deserve that.” Youth in delinquency proceedings are legally entitled to rehabilitation — not punishment.
The following statements can be attributed as noted:
Gina Womack, executive director and co-founder, Families and Friends of Louisiana’s Incarcerated Youth
“We are heartbroken for the kids and families who are being forced to endure this state-sanctioned violence. Today, Louisiana, under the leadership of the governor, is taking a step backwards in the fight for racial justice. To be clear, this is a choice to continue to perpetuate a legacy of slavery and institutional violence. Our state leaders and systems have failed these youth. Instead of giving them the care and support they need to grow into contributing members of society, the state is causing them further trauma and harm.”
Kristen Rome, co-executive director, Louisiana Center for Children’s Rights
“The most damning aspect of the governor’s decision to move children to Angola Prison is that neither he, nor his allies, have ever attempted to explain how this will help children. This decision is immoral and impractical. A new coat of paint on the walls of death row does not make this facility appropriate for children. This facility was created to scare all of the children imprisoned in Louisiana — 80 percent of whom are Black children. The problems inside OJJ facilities are caused by adults, and yet they are being blamed on children. Until OJJ addresses the culture, operations, and policies inside all their facilities, problems will persist. Today, the governor has only made the problems worse.”
Tammie Gregg, deputy director, American Civil Liberties Union National Prison Project
“Moving kids to Angola has made Louisiana a national pariah. As state juvenile justice systems have moved toward supportive models of rehabilitation, treatment, and care, Louisiana has taken an unprecedented step away from best practices and toward punishment. We all want Louisiana’s kids to succeed and have the support they need to have bright futures. Putting them in Angola is antithetical to these shared goals and devastating to the kids who have to endure any time in the prison.”
David Utter, Fair Fight Initiative
“This is a shameful day for Louisiana, a state with a history of brutal racism in its so-called justice system. With Black youth representing over 80 percent of youth in Louisiana’s custody, it is inevitable that they will disproportionately suffer most from the governor’s policy.”
Alanah Odoms, executive director, ACLU of Louisiana
“Angola — Louisiana’s largest maximum-security prison known for its human rights abuses — is no place for kids. My heart goes out to the children and families who are being impacted by this disappointing decision. We will never stop fighting for them, and all for all our youth, because they deserve services and support to help address the underlying causes that often get young people into trouble. We must invest in Louisiana’s kids, not in punishment.”
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Montana Supreme CourtMay 2024
Juvenile Justice
+2 Issues
Held v. MontanaHeld v. Montana
This case pending before the Montana Supreme Court asks, among other things, whether the claims of sixteen youth plaintiffs challenging Montana energy policy present a political question under the Montana Constitution. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Montana, filed an amicus brief arguing that the claims do not present a political question and, moreover, that state courts should not wholesale adopt the federal political questions doctrine. -
Texas Supreme CourtMay 2024
Juvenile Justice
State v. OchoaState v. Ochoa
This case in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concerns the admissibility of a fourteen-year-old defendant’s confession following a Texas Ranger’s coercive interrogation. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Texas, filed an amicus brief arguing that the defendant’s confession was induced by positive promises, and is inadmissible, particularly given his juvenile status and the circumstances of the interrogation. In November 2024, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the highest court for criminal appeals in Texas) ruled that Holland's interrogation of Ochoa was unconstitutionally coercive in violation of Ochoa's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. -
Press ReleaseApr 2024
Free Speech
+2 Issues
ACLU Urges College and University Leaders to Protect Free Speech and Academic FreedomACLU Urges College and University Leaders to Protect Free Speech and Academic Freedom
NEW YORK — In response to the anti-war protests happening at colleges across the country, and the disturbing arrests that have followed, the American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter to leaders at both public and private universities. The letter states: “As you fashion responses to the activism of your students (and faculty and staff), it is essential that you not sacrifice principles of academic freedom and free speech that are core to the educational mission of your respected institution.” Authored by ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero and National Legal Director David Cole, the letter offers university leaders five basic guardrails to ensure freedom of speech and academic freedom are protected on campus: They must not single out particular viewpoints for censorship, discipline, or disproportionate punishment. They must protect students from targeted discriminatory harassment and violence, but may not penalize people for taking sides on the war in Gaza, even if expressed in deeply offensive terms. They can announce and enforce reasonable content-neutral time, place, or manner policies on protesting activity, but they must leave ample room for students to express themselves. These rules must be applied consistently and without regard to viewpoint. They must recognize that armed police on campus can endanger students and are a measure of last resort. They must resist the pressures placed on them by politicians seeking to exploit campus tensions. The letter also informs university leaders of relevant Supreme Court precedent: “The Supreme Court has forcefully rejected the premise that, ‘because of the acknowledged need for order, First Amendment protections should apply with less force on college campuses than in the community at large.’” The letter strongly advises university leaders to be “cognizant of the history of law enforcement using inappropriate and excessive force in responding to protests, particularly against communities of color,” and that — as events of the past week have made abundantly clear — arresting peaceful protestors is likely to escalate, not calm, tensions on campus. The letter also reiterates that violence is never an acceptable protest tactic and that “physically intimidating students by blocking their movements or pursuing them aggressively is unprotected conduct, not protected speech.” -
PodcastJan 2024
Juvenile Justice
It's Time to End Solitary Confinement: Ian Manuel's StoryIt's Time to End Solitary Confinement: Ian Manuel's Story