Page 1 of 17
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol. 10, No. 5
Publication Date: May 25, 2023
DOI:10.14738/assrj.105.14697.
Ezeihuoma, O. P., & Ebulum, G. C. (2023). The Incarceration of Juvenile Delinquents with Adult Offenders in Nigeria: Any
Criminogenic and Developmental Needs. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 10(5).131-147.
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
The Incarceration of Juvenile Delinquents with Adult Offenders
in Nigeria: Any Criminogenic and Developmental Needs
Obinna Paschal Ezeihuoma
University of Pittsburgh @ Bradford, USA
Genevieve Chimaoge Ebulum
Center for General and Entrepreneurial Studies,
David Nwaeze Umahi University of Medical Sciences,
Uburu, Ebonyi State Nigeria
INTRODUCTION
Over a century ago, the establishment and subsequent development of juvenile justice system
presented a paradigm shift in handling of juvenile offenders. Some of the reforms brought out
required changes to the level it is today, like enthronement of the rights of the juvenile through
various landmark supreme court decisions in America (Marion & Oliver, 2012; Mallett & Tedor,
2019). Some other “major reform efforts in juvenile justice have focused on reducing the use of
detention and secure confinement; improving conditions of confinement; closing large
institutions and reinvesting in community-based programs; providing high-quality, evidence- based services for youth in the juvenile justice system; reducing racial/ethnic disparities;
retaining most offending juveniles in the juvenile justice system rather than transferring them
to the criminal justice system; improving delivery of defense services; and developing system- wide juvenile justice planning and collaboration” (National Academies of Sciences, 2013,
p.241).
Prior to the above reforms, children/ juveniles were treated as adults and subjected to
unspeakable atrocities in adult jails and prisons. Some of them were maimed, abused, executed
and to a seeming lesser evil, returned to the society as hardened criminals (Justice Policy
Institute, 1997; Clear, Reisig & Cole, 2019). As the system evolved, it became evident that
housing together juvenile offenders with adult prisoners was not only counterproductive but
self-defeating, and self-destructive. As such, it limits the intended effect of appropriate
therapeutic and rehabilitation efforts directed at juvenile offenders (Lambie & Randell, 2013).
However, the juvenile justice system in America and some countries around the world have
evolved over the years or rather have come of age. But in Africa especially in Nigeria, the
juvenile justice system is still at the teething stage, a level prior to the progress already made
in America and other parts of the globe over the last six decades.
As problematic behaviors of juvenile offenders are complex; one cannot lose sight of the
interaction between individual and social environment which present avenues to elicit and
maintain delinquent behaviors. This is one of the areas that is missing in the aspect of
incarcerations of juvenile delinquents with adult offenders in Nigeria; though it is worth
considering. In addition, it is generally accepted that juveniles do not have the same
Page 2 of 17
132
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 10, Issue 5, May-2023
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
developmental level of maturity of adult (Lambie & Randell, 2013; Steinberg, Cauffman,
Woolard, Graham, & Banich, 2009) and can act on impulse, misread or misinterpret social cues
and emotion (Spear, 2000). This is because of anatomical and functional changes especially
brain development which continues into early adulthood (Giedd, 2008). These changes involve
self-regulation, reward processing, processing of social cues, and emotional maturity, engaging
in risky or dangerous behaviors, lowered levels of sensation seeking and impulsivity, less
resistance to peer influence, and expectation of future consequences (Steinberg, et al., 2009;
American Academy of Child and adolescent Psychiatry, 2022).
There are implications of the psychosocial or emotional immaturity of juvenile delinquents.
Primarily, they are vulnerable to peer influence, coercion, provocation, and their uninformed
decision-making, may entail that liability is mitigated, making incarceration in adult prisons or
detentions unsuitable and untenable (Lambie & Randell, 2013). That was why since 1970s,
efforts were made by the juvenile justice system especially in America, essentially to place
juveniles in separate facilities to shield them from criminogenic influences (behavior tending
to produce crime or criminal) of older, adult offenders. Also, having different facilities from
those of adult offenders shields the juveniles from the effects of some developmental risk
factors that increase the likelihood for continuation of delinquency to adulthood. As such, one
of the overlooked findings by Bureau of Justice Statistics reported about Jail Inmates 2016, that
number of juveniles locked up or detained with adult offenders in jails or detention centers
grew over the years prior (Troilo, 2018), and generally on decline. Since 2000, the number of
young people in confinement has fallen by 60%, a trend that shows no sign of slowing down
(Sawyer, 2019). More new data can show how further we can go.
Some of the decline in youth incarceration is as result of youths aging out of the statistics (for
countries that have data) (Troilo, 2018); but, the number of youths locked up or detain with
adult offenders are not officially known in a place like Nigeria. During the last decades, there
has been public outcry over the increasing incidences of violent crimes by the juvenile
population in United States and around the world, Nigeria inclusive, which has given way for
more punitive policies and sentences for juvenile offenders both status (minor) and
delinquents categories (Pomeroy, Green & Kiam, 2001; Troilo, 2018; Cox, Allen, Hanser, &
Conrad, 2022).
Therefore, the purpose of this research is to examine the impact of the incarceration or
detention of juvenile delinquents with adult offenders in Nigeria using paper reviews literature
published since 2000 (or prior years) on outcome of detention or incarceration of juveniles
with adult offenders. Also, this paper will expose the rehabilitative limitations of their
incarceration or detention with adult offenders through discussion of its impacts and
alternatives. At same time, this research will be focusing on evidence-based alternatives on the
effective treatment to address criminogenic needs and other developmental issues associated
with juveniles.
For the purpose of this review, a juvenile will be defined as a person younger than 18, with
adolescence ranging from ages of 13 and 18 (Lambie & Randell, 2013). Though the word
‘juvenile’ is not all that defined in any piece of legislation in Nigeria except for Children and
Young Persons Law (CYPL) by Lagos State in 1946. This was a follow up of the previous
legislation named Children and Young Persons Act II (CYPA) by the British colonial government
Page 3 of 17
133
Ezeihuoma, O. P., & Ebulum, G. C. (2023). The Incarceration of Juvenile Delinquents with Adult Offenders in Nigeria: Any Criminogenic and
Developmental Needs. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 10(5).131-147.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.105.14697
in 1943. Therefore, we use the CYPL definition of a ‘child’ to mean a person under the age of 14.
While ‘young person’ is defined as person who attained the age of 14, and under the age 18
(Okagbue, n.d.).
FOCUS ON THE PECULIARITIES OF NIGERIAN JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM AND
INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS
Nigerian public was absolutely incensed in July 2001 about a report in one of the newspapers
in the commercial city of Lagos; that the police took a four-year-old child into custody for
breaking the car windscreen of a neighbor (The Humanitarian, 2002). The child was kept in
unkempt police station for 48 hours with adult offenders and was forced to do manual labor.
The above underscores the level of dissonance in the administration of juvenile justice in
Nigeria: “it had become a system in which rules and regulations were being breached by those
very people responsible for enforcing them” (n.p.). In the incident aforementioned, there was a
clash of seeming normal African cultural deterrent approach to discipline a child and crass
ignorance of the United Nations Convention on the Right of the Child (UNCRC) on the part of
the agency of criminal justice, Nigerian police.
This UNCRC was established in 1989 and ratified by many countries except United States of
America. Consequently, Nigeria signed and ratified the UNCRC and domesticated the same and
tagged it as Child Rights Act (CRA) in 2003 (Muncie, 2009; Lambie & Randell, 2013; Mildred &
Plummer, 2009). UNCRC charter has legal framework that advocates for the protection of
persons under 18. It clearly implies that persons under 18 years of age need to be treated as a
special population due to their age and associated developmental needs (Independent Police
Conduct Authority, 2012). UNCRC further proposes about 40 specific rights for children
especially for special protection of children/juveniles in conflict of the law (Muncie, 2009;
Lambie & Randell, 2013).
Despite Nigeria’s legal framework, professed commitment and support to the international
charters and conventions to protect the children/juveniles; there is always an apprehension on
the part of the World body like United Nations (UN) that their rights are consistently violated.
For example, Nigeria was one of the seven countries (Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi
Arabia, Yemen, and United States of America) that were known to have executed minor’s
contrary to Article 37 of UNCRC (Cox, Allen, & Conrad, 2022). This violation of the rights of the
children/juveniles in detention centers or prisons makes it easier for more and more to be
hardened, traumatized, and possibly executed because of crime (The Humanitarian, 2002). On
this, the head of Constitutional Rights Project (CRP), a leading human right group, pointed out
that young people “... are jailed and incarcerated with adults instead of being given more
reformed-oriented, non-custodial forms of sentencing” (n.p.). Surely, incarceration or detention
of juvenile delinquents with adult offenders is not a true reflection of what the country’s law
envisaged that young people should be treated.
Furthermore, the earliest extant law on juvenile justice in Nigeria is the Children and Young
People’s Act (CYPA). This was passed by British colonial government in 1943. Thus, “the act
was later revised and incorporated into Nigeria’s federal laws. Under the law, a child under the
age of seven years is not criminally responsible. At 12 years of age, a child cannot be held
criminally responsible unless it is proven that he or she has the capacity to understand the
implications of the action in question” (The Humanitarian, 2002, n.p.). In addition, Shariah law
Page 4 of 17
134
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 10, Issue 5, May-2023
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
practiced mainly in Northern part of Nigeria put the age of responsibility to 18 or puberty but
could be lowered to 15 years of age in a case like adultery or fornication; and may attract
flogging or the death penalty. By implication, it means that there is no distinction between them
and adults. In all, these legal provisions made by the federal and some state governments fail to
align with African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, the United Nations Convention
of the Rights of the Child, and United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Administration of
Juvenile Justice (The Humanitarian, 2002; Okagbue, n.d.).
Dimensions of the Problem
Another peculiarity of juvenile justice system in Nigeria is the difficulty to determine the
number of children/juveniles detained, locked up or involved in the system. As such, record
keeping is not one of the strengths of the juvenile justice system or Nigeria Correctional
Services (NCS) and some parts of the world (Silva, 2010; Okagbue, n.d.). Lack of records means
that the number of children/juveniles held with adult offenders in jails or prison environment
is not known. Effort has been made to offer administrative solution to this inability to gather a
reliable data. But it has been hindered in Nigeria and elsewhere in the world by the scope of the
problem, definitions, different methodologies, conceptual understandings and other
operational challenges (Simpson, Reekie, Butler, Richters, Yap, Grant, & Donovan, 2016). To
rely on information based on anecdotal evidence from individuals have resulted in wide range
of estimate of the prevalence in the facilities where young and adult offenders are locked up or
detained (see Gaes & Goldberg, 2004). But the United Nations Children’s fund (UNICEF) has
estimated that more than 1 million juveniles are locked up (Silva, 2010). Many are confined
with adults. Others are held in decrepit, abusive, and demeaning conditions, deprived of
education, with limited access to meaningful activities and separated from outside world (Silva,
2010; Atilola, Abiri & Ola, 2019).
The most comprehensive data of juvenile offenders locked up or detained in adult facilities
normally are found in court and police records (Marion & Oliver, 2012). But in Nigeria, this is
not a usual practice. Though, we can piece and sieve pockets of information here and there from
newspapers and allied media (like T.V) or some published papers. In fact, one of the palpable
indications of the failure of the criminal justice system in Nigeria is that official figures are
scanty or at most obsolete. There was a figure from Federal Office of Statistics in 1993 and it
covered two third of the country (The Humanitarian, 2002). This figure indicated that 6,496
people in prison aged between 16, and 20, while 709 were under 16 about 11%. In 1994, Annual
Police Report detailed that number of juveniles taken into custody was 295 nationwide
showing a decline from 709. According to UNICEF, about 73% of these children/juveniles in
custody are first offenders (The Humanitarian, 2002; UNICEF, 2021).
Furthermore, the jails and prisons are congested given the sharp increase in prison population
from 2010-2020 in Nigeria (see fig.1) due to myriad of problems in Nigeria (Okagbue, n.d.; The
Humanitarian, 2002; Institute for Crime and Justice Policy Research, 2022). Because of this
congestion, juveniles are usually not separated from adult and hardened criminals contrary to
the provisions of law and international charter. Institute for Crime and Justice Policy Research
(2022), put some figures about the prison population in Nigeria from 2000-2020 as below
(fig.1). The number of people incarcerated spiked from 2000-2018 and declined in the year
2020. There was not much information about the number of juveniles locked up with adult
offenders except for 2022 edition which put the percentage at 1.7%. In the website of Nigeria
Page 5 of 17
135
Ezeihuoma, O. P., & Ebulum, G. C. (2023). The Incarceration of Juvenile Delinquents with Adult Offenders in Nigeria: Any Criminogenic and
Developmental Needs. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 10(5).131-147.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.105.14697
Correctional Services (NCS), there is scanty information about children/juvenile incarcerated
or detained.
Figure 1 Nigeria Prison Population from 2000-2020
In 2009 report of the United Nations (UN) Committee on the rights of the child, indicated that
Nigerian juvenile justice system is in state of crisis (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child,
2009). The crisis is exemplified in another study on juvenile justice administration conducted
by Constitutional Right Project (CRP) with the assistance of Penal Reform International (PRI),
found that police officers often falsified ages of juveniles to pass them off in court as adults, just
to avoid abiding to the legal requirements for their treatment. The study highlighted that this
was often the case especially in the parts of Nigeria where there are no borstals or remand
home (The humanitarian, 2002). Currently, the crisis is still on and it has been driven by some
operational, resources, and capacity challenges in the system (Atilola, 2013).
IMPACT OF INCARCERATION OR DETENTION OF JUVENILE DELINQUENTS
WITH ADULT OFFENDERS
The outcome of dangers inherent in housing of juvenile offenders with adult offenders in
prisons or jails, portends untold consequences. Some literature reviews indicated that on daily
basis the average of 7,500 juveniles are confined in adult facilities (The Campaign for Youth
Justice, 2007). Annually, the number could go up to ten times over. In spite of dire consequences
of locking up of the youth and longtime effects it may have, many young people are still being
locked up (The Campaign for Youth Justice, 2007; Silva, 2010) with adults in Nigeria and other
parts of the world. The impact of incarceration of juvenile delinquents with adult offenders give
rise to enormous risk of suicide, mental health disorders, vulnerability to sexual exploitation,
danger of isolation and other worst outcomes.
Suicide
It is well established in various scholarly works that there is link between suicide/suicide
ideation and mental health (Muanya, Akpunonu & Onyenucheya, 2021; Lambie & Randell,
2013). Also, research has shown that the juveniles locked up with adult offenders are 36 times
more likely to commit suicide than youth in juvenile-only facilities (Troilo, 2018). Although
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 0
44,450
40,048 38,999 40,953 41,143
46,586
51,560
56,785
63,142
73,631
62,388
-10000
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
Nigerian Prison Population 2000-20
Page 6 of 17
136
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 10, Issue 5, May-2023
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
mortality rate for those incarcerated is lower compared to population rate, but attempted
suicides may be higher (Kiriakidis, 2008).
Due to psychosocial immaturity, young people can be impulsive in moment of crisis. This can
elicit breakdown in their ability to deal with life stresses, like financial problems, relationship
break up, or chronic pain (Muanya et al., 2021). In addition, experiencing conflict, disaster,
violence, abuse, or loss and stressing condition of confinement are strongly linked with suicidal
behavior. The strongest risk factor for suicide in the young people locked up is a previous
suicide attempt (Bonner, 2006; Muanya et al., 2021).
Some adolescents examined in 2010 at a rate of 10.5 per 100,000, showed that suicide is the
third-leading cause of death in young people between 15 and 24 years old (Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, 2013). Also, it shows that the rate of suicide has doubled in the younger
people since 1950s, increasing at a faster rate than among adults age 25 and older (National
Center for Health Statistics, 2004). Data obtained from American juvenile correctional setting
indicated that incarcerated youths are at particularly greater risk for suicide; the prevalence
rates of completed suicide for this group are between two to four times higher than those of the
youths in the general population (Gallagher and Dobrin, 2006; Memory, 1989).
In Nigeria, there is dearth of data for suicide among young people incarcerated or detained with
adult offenders. But World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that in Nigeria about 17,710
cases of suicide were recorded in 2016 at all ages. Among in this number were 8,410 females
while 9,300 were males (Akinremi, 2021). The percentage ratio of men to women was 53:47.
And among teenage girls aged 15 to 19, it was the second biggest killer after maternal
conditions. In teenage boys, suicide ranked third behind road injury and interpersonal violence
(Akinremi, 2021). Globally, Nigeria was ranked sixth highest. The figure puts Nigeria as the
leading country in suicide in the African region. It was followed by Ethiopia and South Africa
with 7,323 and 6,476 cases respectively (Akinremi, 2021). This shows the menace of suicide
not only on the general population in Nigeria but more so with the young people.
Impact of Mental Health Problems
Greater number of young people incarcerated suffer from emotional, behavioral (Lambie &
Randell, 2013), and mental health issues, such as drug and alcohol abuse, depression,
aggression, suicide attempts and ideation etc., ( Kiriakidis, 2008; Hays, 2004). These problems
are exacerbated by unfriendly conditions experienced during incarceration with adult
offenders. Pitiably, most jails or prisons housing juveniles in Nigeria are ill equipped to handle
these problems (Atilola et al., 2018). At the time of incarceration or detention, young people
experience isolation, boredom, bullying, and victimization which are pervasive stressors
(Greve, 2001). Studies have shown that about two thirds of youths involved with juvenile
justice system meet criteria for one or more psychiatric disorders, even after excluding conduct
disorders (Teplin, 2002; Abram, 2004); estimates reveal that approximately 50 to 75 percent
of the 2 million youths (Underwood & Washington, 2016). It has to be noted that high
occurrence of mental health issues within the juvenile justice system does not necessarily call
for treatment, but emphasizes the need for different levels of mental health care to diversify
treatment options. Because juveniles who meet criteria for a disorder experience their disorder
temporarily; therefore, they only need emergency services (Underwood & Washington, 2016).
Page 7 of 17
137
Ezeihuoma, O. P., & Ebulum, G. C. (2023). The Incarceration of Juvenile Delinquents with Adult Offenders in Nigeria: Any Criminogenic and
Developmental Needs. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 10(5).131-147.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.105.14697
More studies have compiled a high prevalence of mental and behavioral disorders among
juvenile population in Nigeria (Atilola et al., 2018). For example, compared with non- incarcerated juveniles it was found that there was a high prevalence of (23 v.63%; P<0.001)
ongoing mental health issues such as depression, anxiety and disruptive behaviors among
juveniles locked up in Ibadan, Nigeria (Atilola, 2012). Some other risk factors which dispose
incarcerated or detained juveniles vulnerable to mental health problems in facilities could be
traced to pre-incarceration psychosocial problems. These may include dysfunctional families,
poverty, homelessness, exposure to traumatic events and other childhood maltreatment and
abuse common to residents of juvenile facilities across Nigeria (Atilola et al., 2019). The
conclusion made from the study by Atilola and others (2019), aptly captured the situation
suggesting that, “...the Nigerian juvenile justice system at present is more of a warehouse where
troubled and troubling youth are kept without addressing their psychosocial and mental health
needs” (n.p.). This situation has aggravated the crisis in the Nigerian juvenile justice system
owing to adult offenders and juvenile delinquents having to share the same facilities and
administrative procedures, in amidst of prevailing ethical and human right concerns (Atilola et
al, 2019).
Susceptibility to Rape and Sexual Assault
Juveniles detained or incarcerated with adult offenders are highly susceptible to be sexually
exploited or harassed (Troilo, 2018). According to the National Inmate Survey conducted by
United States Department of Justice (DOJ) found that “1.8 percent of 16- and 17-year-old jailed
in adult facilities have reported being sexually abused while in custody, either by other adult
inmates or by prison staff (Kraut, 2020, n.p.; Lahey, 2016). Of these cases, 75 percent reported
being abused repeatedly by the staff (Lahey, 2016). It was because of the sexually related
offenses in some facilities housing the young people and adult offenders that US Congress
passed the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) of 2003 adding it to the federal statute of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDP) of 1974 (The campaign for Youth justice,
2007; Lahey, 2016). The guidelines for these two federal statues requested for a pragmatic
approach to stamp out rape in prisons and advocated that the young people must be housed
separately from adults (Lahey, 2016). In Nigeria, official statistics of sexually related incidences
in juvenile facilities (or detention centers housing juveniles with adults) are not known. Due to
power imbalance between an adult and the youth, the issue of sexual assaults in these facilities
in Nigeria are not reported. Also, there is no enabling environment empowering the youth to
report such cases (Atilola et al., 2019). So, the culture of silence in those facilities has increased
the menace and reduces avenues for accountability on any individual involved.
But, in America, PREA statue made the congress to demand the statistics of incidences of rape
and other sexually related offences across the nation’s correctional facilities to determine how
best to combat and evaluate the problem. Adequate funds were made available to handle the
problems of these crimes in prisons and jails (The Campaign for Youth Justice, 2007). The
Bureau of justice statistics are in charge of collecting data but we sometimes do not have near
estimated number of incidences. In fact, the sexual assault of the minors is widely
underreported and less than 10 percent of minors in National Survey (of DOJ) reported that
they were sexually abused (Kraut, 2020). Unlike Nigeria, US government has gone a long way
to deal with the issues of rape and sexually related offenses in correctional facilities.
Page 8 of 17
138
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 10, Issue 5, May-2023
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
However, there are some ethical concerns in collecting the actual number of juvenile victims
especially same-sex population in the prisons for fear of attacks especially in America. This
compounds the problem at hand. Some researchers have noted the frustration in collection of
data of victims of sexual violence in the prisons and jails because of uncooperating attitudes of
some inmates and officers. In some instances, police/correctional officers inflate or reduce the
incidences depending on the one that favors them or they maintain outright refusal to
acknowledge there is such problems (Okagbue, n.d.; Aikulola, 2019). Nigeria has a peculiar
problem, the issue of same-sex is outlawed by the government (British Broadcasting
Corporation BBC, 2021) compounding the problem of those in this category who experience
sexual violence in jails or prison housing young people and adult offenders.
The extent of the problem of the sexually related offenses in adult jails and prison housing
young people in Nigeria can be latent given what we may call a smothering culture of silence
(Abour, 2020). An apparent mute secrecy maintained in prisons/jails by perpetrators, the staff
of jails/prisons and especially the victims, who are ashamed and afraid of retaliation. Be that as
it may, some young people who came in healthy in facilities, got infected with some diseases
like sexually transmitted diseases and in some cases exposed to HIV/AIDS before they are
released. Some of them were infected before coming in contact with correctional settings
(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2021). This precarious situation urgently calls for
serious reforms in criminal justice systems especially correctional facilities housing young and
adults together in Nigeria.
Danger of Isolation
Accepted we advocate for separation of juveniles from adult facilities, we do not subscribe to
isolation as the answer either. Youth held with adult prisons and jails are greater risk of being
held in solitary confinement (Troilo, 2016). It is established by the campaign for Youth justice
(2007), that separating the youth from the adult population decreases the emotional and bodily
harm that may result from sexual assault and violence from adult offenders. But this should not
be a pretext to put the youth in solitary confinement. It is heart rending to note that in solving
the problem of vulnerability of these youths to physical and sexual assault by adult offenders,
we create worst problems by locking this youth in dangerous and solitary environment (The
Campaign for Youth Justice, 2007). These youths can be isolated for 23 hours a day in unnatural
state with limited light. Experts have reiterated the dire consequences of locking up youth in
isolation. They argue that limited movement in cell causes mental disorder and other
developmental issues (Lambie & Randell, 2013; Kiriakidis, 2008; The Campaign for Youth
Justice, 2007). It is unimaginable and devasting the long-time effect and outcome of behaviors
of these youths isolated and locked down in the facilities (Kraut, 2020). Sure, risks are obvious,
one of them is trauma. Because their brains are still years away from full development; locking
the juvenile offenders with adult offenders can derail their anatomical development and other
developmental needs. These can consequently dispose them for recidivism (Troilo, 2018;
Lambie & Randell, 2013).
Some criminal justice researchers have raised alarm in response of untold stories of youth
locked up in adult facilities (Lahey, 2016; Kraut, 2020). Recently, civil groups like Human Right
Watch and American Civil Liberty Union have shown how horrible the impact of protracted
isolation may mean. The juveniles detained or lock up in isolations can cause them mental
health disorder and other psychologically problems affecting the young people in the jails and
Page 9 of 17
139
Ezeihuoma, O. P., & Ebulum, G. C. (2023). The Incarceration of Juvenile Delinquents with Adult Offenders in Nigeria: Any Criminogenic and
Developmental Needs. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 10(5).131-147.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.105.14697
prison (The New York Times, 2012; Underwood & Washington, 2016). Other dangers of
detention or solitary confinement of the juveniles summarized by academic research are: it
slows the natural process of aging out of delinquency, exacerbates any existing mental
disorders, reduces the chances of returning to school, and diminishes success in the labor
market (Troilo, 2018).
ALTERNATIVES ON THE EFFECTIVE TREATMENT TO ADDRESS CRIMINOGENIC NEEDS
AND OTHER DEVELOPMENTAL ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH JUVENILES
Understanding the Outcome and Risk Factors of Juvenile Incarceration
The outcome of locking up the juvenile offenders is poor; and worst, if they are housed or
detained with adult offenders. Studies have shown that incarceration does not deter future
adolescent crime whereas the experience itself is part of the problem. Importantly, the
placement in these correctional facilities has either no correlation with offender rearrests or
recidivism (Mallett & Tedor, 2019; Winokur, Smith, Bontrager, Blankership, 2011). To place
juveniles in any facility be it adult or juveniles only, coupled with longer length of time, increase
the risk for reoffending after release for some juvenile delinquents even for three to nine
months stay. Yet, a stay in pretrial detention or prison increases a young person’s chances of
felony recidivism by 33% and misdemeanor recidivism by 11% within one year, and a small
effect for length of stay (1% increased risk per day)(Walker & Herting, 2020). The risk increases
alarmingly in low level offenders (Mallett & Tedor, 2019), typically the profile of most youths
locked up or detained with adult offenders in Nigerian detention centers or prisons. Granted
that these youths are locked up or detained, there is little or no services in some facilities in
Nigeria that may assist in mitigating the prior delinquent behaviors (Atilola et al., 2019).
Consequently, they are not provided with rehabilitative programming (for mental health,
education, or trauma, among others) that the juveniles need (Mallett & Tedor, 2019). Most
incarceration facilities are ill-equipped to handle the rehabilitative needs of the juveniles placed
in their institutions (Atilola et al., 2019), let alone the needs of delinquent offenders with
serious comorbid problems and educational deficit (The Council of State Government Justice
Center, 2015).
The risk that disposes juveniles for offending and reoffending are broad and interwoven in
nature. These may include the complex interactions of factors on the individual’s family
dynamics, school, work, community and even peer group (Lambie & Randell, 2013). For
intervention or evidence-based solution to be effective, it must address all the risk factors,
criminogenic, and developmental needs and responsivity. Research has posited this theory of
risk/need/responsivity (RNR) as the basis of effective rehabilitation (Alarid, 2019). This is a
theory of rehabilitation by Andrews, Bonta and Hoge (1990) that “suggests focusing on treating
high-risk offenders, matching correctional interventions with criminogenic needs, and
implementing treatment according to offenders’ learning styles and personal character” (p.16).
These intervention and evidence-based practices must be individual-specific issues; that is,
they must be tailored to the specific aspects of an individual’s “social ecology” that are key to
their offending behaviors (Henggeler & Schoenwald, 2011).
Risk factors are characteristics of a juvenile or the environment surrounding the juveniles that
disposes or increases their chances of offending. Risk factors are variables linked to behavioral
problems which may include: early onset of aggressive behavior, patterns of high family
conflict, school related like truancy, gang involvement, drug availability (Office of Juvenile
Page 10 of 17
140
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 10, Issue 5, May-2023
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Justice and Delinquency Prevention OJJDP, 2015). There are two types of risk factors: static and
dynamic. Static risk factors are those historical characteristics of an adolescent that can never
be changed through treatment or programming, like the age at which the first offence was
committed, history of violent behavior and parent criminality. While dynamic risk factors are
characteristics that can change over time, on account of treatment or the normal developmental
process (Vincent, Guy & Grisso, 2012; OJJDP, 2015). Examples are poor parenting practices,
substance abuse, association with delinquent peers, and poor academic achievement (OJJDP,
2015). Protective/prosocial factors are factors that lower the likelihood of a youth to offend
(Pollard, Hawkins & Arthur, 1999). For example, illiteracy is a risk factor that can dispose a
juvenile to offend but protective factor for this could be education. Therefore, education serves
as a buffer for the risk factor (illiteracy) which can give room for offending.
Thus, criminogenic needs are related to dynamic risk factors and refer to characteristics of the
juvenile, when changed, are linked with the risk of recidivism (Vincent, Guy & Grisso, 2012).
Criminogenic needs are “problems, habits, or deficits that are directly related to an individual’s
involvement in criminal behavior” (Alarid, 2019, p.16). For example, substance abuse is risk
factor, if targeted and treated properly, the youth risk of reoffending should be reduced.
Developmental needs of adolescents are related to multiple factors (may be risk or protective)
such as child factors, family factors, peer factors, school factors, and neighborhood factors
(Shrader, 2003). They are those needs of an adolescent, like mental, emotional, and behavioral
factors, many of which can change as children progress from infancy into adulthood. It could be
individual’s encounter with specific expectations for behavior in a given social context. The
changes can be across phases of development and may also differ by culture, gender, and
historical period. Success or failure in meeting these developmental tasks is judged by natural
raters (e.g., parent, teachers), (National Institute of Health, 2009). Example of developmental
needs are competence, self-esteem, bonding, positive role model, creative expression, positive
social interaction, poor parenting skills etc.
Preventive interventions for young people who are locked up are intended to avert mental,
emotional, and behavioral problems throughout their life span. These interventions must be
shaped by developmental and contextual considerations. To develop effective interventions, it
is pertinent to understand both how developmental and contextual factors at younger ages
affect the outcomes at older ages and how to influence those factors. The concept of risk and
protective factors is central to framing and interpreting the research needed to develop and
evaluate intervention (National Institute of Health, 2009).
Alternative and Effective Treatment
Research has shown that effective treatments are centered on the principles of risk, need and
responsivity (RNR) and eventual evaluation of their effectiveness (Lambie & Randell, 2013;
Dowden & Andrews, 1999; Alarid, 2019). As evidence-based practice, this approach (RNR)
suggests that treatment should be commensurate to the level of risk posed by individual, that
criminogenic and developmental needs must be directly addressed. Also, the style of treatment
must meet the client’s learning style and be able to address treatment targets (Lambie &
Randell, 2013). Again, interventions should be rehabilitative in nature, take a cue from
behavioral techniques, maintain high-quality implementation, and be multi-systemic focusing
especially on the environment where the young person resides (Henggeler & Schoenwald,
2011; Lambie & Randell, 2013). Sadly, in Nigeria correctional setting, locking up of juveniles
Page 11 of 17
141
Ezeihuoma, O. P., & Ebulum, G. C. (2023). The Incarceration of Juvenile Delinquents with Adult Offenders in Nigeria: Any Criminogenic and
Developmental Needs. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 10(5).131-147.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.105.14697
with adult offenders does not put into consideration the criminogenic and developmental needs
which can stem the tide of constant reoffending of the young offenders.
Currently, scholars are encouraging the use of evidence-based practices in the treatment of
juvenile offenders (Henggeler & Schoenwald, 2011). Community-based programs which
incorporates cognitive behavioral and social learning are typically understood to include these
principles for effective outcome (Lambie & Randell, 2013). In Nigeria, this community-based
programs are needed urgently to take care of status or minor juvenile offenders while
prioritizing the delinquent ones. This could be done through formalized diversion from juvenile
justice system through “alternative procedures and programs, probation, mediation,
counselling, community service, and where appropriate, “semi-open” facilities that give
children supervision and structure but allow them to attend schools in the community and
return home for overnight visits” (Silva, 2010, n.p.). However, globally, there is a growing
understanding that detention centers or prisons housing the youth with adults are not helpful
in the area of mental health promotions and services (Alcorn, 2014). This has prompted an
adoption of community-based pre-emptive mental health services as a form of diversion,
basically for at risk youth and status or minor offenders (Alcorn, 2014; Atilola et al., 2019).
Atilola and others (2019), have argued that this paradigm shift is needed in Nigeria, where
greater number of youths taken into custody are mostly minors or status offenders and
available services for mental health are lacking (Atilola et al., 2019). There was a potential
facilitator for the diversion model in Nigeria by social welfare structures (e.g., Family Support
Unit, Human Integration Department and School Social Service). This pre-existing diversion
model can be built upon. But limitation to this approach is based on foundational absence of
diversion philosophy within the Nigerian criminal justice system which historically is hinged
on punitive incarceration (Atilola, 2013; Atilola et al., 2019).
Research has indicated that intervention with philosophies of deterrence or disciplines like
boot-camp or scared straight, can have no effect on reoffending (Lipsey, 2009) and should be
discontinued. Unfortunately, in Nigeria, corporal punishment is used in detention as a way of
deterrence (The Humanitarian, 2002), this can be misused since there are no adequate
supervisions of the excesses of some staff. However, it is difficult to implement any intervention
successfully in current Nigerian correctional setting especially where juvenile offenders are
housed. Because, social workers and probation officers in youth correctional facilities in Nigeria
are overworked given low staff ration while greater number lacked proper training on
psychosocial assessment or intervention techniques to consolidate upon (Atilola et al., 2019).
Other empirically supported treatment that are prominently advocated include Multisystemic
Therapy (MST) (Lambie & Randell, 2013), Functional Family Therapy (FFT) (Alexander, Pugh,
Parsons, & Sexton, 2000) and Multidimensional Treatment Foster care (MTTC) (Chamberlin,
2003). The effectiveness of the treatments and interventions mentioned above have been found
to be tenable (Lambie & Randell, 2013).
Various studies have found that positive effects of evidence-based treatments on problem
behaviors are mediated by absence of improvement in issues like family cohesion and
functioning, caregiver supervision and discipline, the dynamics of adult-youth and delinquents
peers’ relationship (Eddy & Chamberlain, 2000; Huey, Henggeler, Brondino, & Pickrel, 2000:
Van Ryzin & leve, 2012). Family stability and adult-youth/delinquent peer association are
therefore crucial mechanisms in program with favorable outcome and may likely to be
Page 12 of 17
142
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 10, Issue 5, May-2023
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
disrupted by group residential incarceration settings housing juvenile and adult offenders
(Lambie & Randell, 2013).
Nevertheless, there is growing public concern that the use of jails and correctional facilities,
which is expensive choice though, should be made available only for dangerous crimes and
chronic felon offenders. In this direction, Nigeria community-based options and other non- custodial options should be expanded as parole and probation may not cover every situation
(Alarid, 2019). Yet the cost of maintaining people incarcerated is still mind blowing. For
example, in 2012, “over N50 billion (about $312,500,000) (Appropriation Act 2012) was
budgeted for prison and yet the prison sub-culture makes inmate come out more hardened”
(Yekini & Salisu, 2013, p.101). Annually in U.S alone, about 80 billion dollars are spent to
maintain prisons/ jails and other related services (Clear, Resig, & Cole, 2019). This is a pointer
that the alternative treatment is necessary given that incarceration of juvenile delinquents with
adult offenders which has been viewed before now in Nigeria as adroit means of protection of
the public is not sustainable. The above has shown that it is not a veritable option either in
cutting cost or ameliorating negative outcomes.
Furthermore, the high cost of incarceration and its negative outcomes have made the need to
examine the cost-effectiveness of locking up or detaining the youth with adults more inevitable
(Clear et al., 2019). Research has compared the cost effectiveness of incarcerating the juveniles
to other intervention programs like diversion and mentoring, FFT, aggression replacement
training, and MST (Aos, 2002). The study concluded that MST was the most cost-effective and
detention was found to be less cost-effective. Also, this was supported by another study in state
of Missouri to determine a cost-benefit analysis of MST. The result showed that in a sample of
juvenile delinquents, because of fewer expenses and victims, every dollar spent on MST saved
taxpayers about $9.50-$23.50 (Klietz, Borduin, & Schaeffer, 2010). Nigeria has a peculiar
problem, unlike other juvenile justice systems around the world; Nigeria juvenile justice is
underfunded, and sometimes, an amalgam of social welfare and youth correctional systems
(Atilola et al., 2019). In another setting, juvenile offenders (both status and delinquents) and
adult offenders are locked up in the same place in a makeshift correctional facility (Atilola et al.,
2019). Evidently, this practice has enormous poor outcomes.
In Nigeria, the punitive stance of criminal justice has dwarfed much avenues for proper
rehabilitation, therapeutic option for the victims, and reintegration of the juvenile offenders to
the community. As such, crime has been traditionally viewed as violating the state, but there is
awareness now that a criminal act not only violates the victim but the community (Clear et al.,
2019). The restorative justice option in Nigerian juvenile justice can offer alternative to heal
the victims and communities. Restorative justice represents a new approach in conflict
resolution within and outside the criminal justice process (Ezeihuoma, 2018). This is a unique
framework for understanding and responding to crime to the extent that opportunity is created
to balance the rights and interests of crime victims, offenders, and the community (Umbreit,
2001). Restorative justice offers an avenue to respect the victim, who has been neglected in the
traditional criminal justice system, while the offender is held accountable and community
respond by integrating all involved. Restorative justice strikes a balance between law and
order, unlike retributive justice, where state is both victim and judge (Hoffman, 2000).
Page 13 of 17
143
Ezeihuoma, O. P., & Ebulum, G. C. (2023). The Incarceration of Juvenile Delinquents with Adult Offenders in Nigeria: Any Criminogenic and
Developmental Needs. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 10(5).131-147.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.105.14697
CONCLUSION
Incarceration of adult inmates is notoriously is inadequate. Worst still for juveniles locked up
with adults; this has been shown to be, not only counterproductive but self-defeating, and self- destructive. As such, it limits the intended effect of appropriate therapeutic and rehabilitation
efforts directed at juvenile offenders. Before now it has been viewed as adroit means of
protection of the public, research indicates that it is not a veritable option either in cutting cost
or ameliorating negative outcomes. In Nigeria, juveniles locked up or detained with adults in
different facilities scattered all over the country are exposed daily to risk of suicide, mental
health disorders, sexual abuse and exploitation, more dangers of isolation and; there is lack of
adequate intervention programs to deal with comorbid issues of mental health associated with
delinquency. The impact of these have been found to be detrimental to the youth and the
society. Thus, incarceration or detention of young people with adult offenders in Nigeria
impairs their positive psychosocial development and transition into adulthood. In addition, it
derails their ability to reintegrate successfully into the community after incarceration and
brings untold negative adult outcomes.
Globally, it is accepted that juveniles do not have the same developmental level of maturity like
adults; by implication it entails that liability is mitigated, making incarceration in adult prisons
or detentions unsuitable and untenable. Nevertheless, youth exposure to prison subculture,
lack of rehabilitative programs to attend to their (both criminogenic and developmental needs),
and loss of their liberty can exacerbate chances of reoffending when released. Given this,
confining young people with adult offenders in Nigeria and elsewhere can limit their
rehabilitative potential. Although, numerous literatures as explained above tend to agree on
effectiveness of evidence-based treatment options for rehabilitation of juvenile delinquents,
government policies and juvenile justice systems are yet to reflect the findings. When this is
done in Nigerian juvenile justice system coupled with implementation of legal framework,
provisions and different charters concerning the juveniles; then, indiscriminate incarceration
of juveniles with adult offenders will be a thing of past.
References
Abour, S. (2020). Culture of silence: Why minority victims of sex abuse don’t report. Focus For Health Foundation.
https://www.focusforhealth.org/culture-of-silence-why-minority-victims-of-sex-abuse-don’t-report/
Aikulola, S. (2019, April 2). Stakeholders fault detention of juveniles with adults, call for reform of juvenile
administration. Guardian Newspaper. https://guardian.ng/ features/stakeholders-fault-detention-of-juveniles- with-adults-call-for-reform-of- juvenile-justice-administration/
Akinremi, R. (2019). Nigeria has highest suicide rate in Africa, sixth globally. International Centre for Investigate
Reporting. https://www.icirnigeria.org/nigeria-has-highest-suicide-rate-in-africa-sixth-globally/
Alarid, L.F. (2019). Community-Based Corrections. Boston, MA: Cengage
Alcorn, T. (2014). Rethinking mental health care for young offenders. The Lancet, 383, 1283-1284.
Alexander, J.F., Pugh, C., Parsons, B.V., & Sexton, T.I. (2000). Functional family therapy. In D.S Elliot (Ed),
Blueprints for violence prevention, book three (2nd ed.). Center For the study and Prevention of Violence, Institute
of Behavioral Science, Univer-sity of Colorado Boulder, CO.
Andrews, D.A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R.D. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Re-Discovering
psychology. Crime and Delinquency, 52(1), 7-27.
Page 14 of 17
144
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 10, Issue 5, May-2023
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Aos, S. (2002). The juvenile justice system in Washington State: Recommendation to improveCost-effectiveness.
Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
Atilola, O. (2013). Juvenile/youth justice management in Nigeria: Making a case for diversion Programmes. Youth
Justice, 13, 3-16.
Atilola, O. (2012). Prevalence and correlates of psychiatric disorders among residents of aJuvenile remand home
in Nigeria: Implications for mental health service planning. Nigerian Journal of Medicines: Journal of the National
Association of resident Doctors of Nigeria, 21, 416-426
Atilola, O., Abiri, G., & Ola, B. (2019). The Nigerian juvenile justice system: From warehouse to uncertain quest for
appropriate youth mental health service model. BJPsych International.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6357525/
Bonner, R.L. (2006). Stressful segregation housing and psychological housing and psycho-Social vulnerability in
prison suicide ideators. Suicide & Life-Threatening Behavior, 36 (2), 250-254. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1521/sli.2006.36.2.250
British Broadcasting Corporation. (2021, May 12). Homosexuality: The countries where it is Illegal to be a gay.
Retrieved from https://www.bbbc.com/news/world-43822234.amp
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013). Injury prevention and control: Web-basedInjury statistics
query and Reporting System. Retrieved from www.cdc.gov/ injury/wisqars/index.html.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021). Sexually transmitted infectious treatment guidelines 2021.
https://www.cdc.gov/std/treatment- guidelines/correctional.htm
Clear, T.R., Resisig, M.D., & Cole, G.F. (2019). American Corrections. Boston, MA: Cengage
Chamberlain, P. (2003). Treating chronic juvenile offenders: Advances made through the Oregon Multidimensional
treatment Foster Care Model. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
http://dx.doi.org/10.01177/0093854807307170
Cox, S.M., Allen, J.M., Hanser, R.D., & Conrad, J.J. (2022). Juvenile Justice: A guide to theory, Policy, and practice.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dowden, C., & Andrews, D.A. (1999). What works in young offender treatment: A meta-analysis. Forum on
Corrections Research, 11(2), 21-24
Editorial. (2012, October 15). Growing Up in Jails. New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/opinion/adolescents-in-grown-up-jails.html
Eddy, J.M., & Chamberlain, P. (2000). Family management and deviant peer association as Mediators of the
impact of treatment on youth antisocial behavior. Journal of Consulting And Clinical Psychology. 68(5), 857-863.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006x.68,5,857.
Ezeihuoma, O.P. (2018). The Therapeutic role of forgiveness in restorative justice. Journal of Law and Criminal
Justice.Vol.6, no 1, pp.47-54
Gaes, G.G., & Goldberg, A.L. (2004). Prison rape: A critical review of the literature. Washington, D.C: National
Institute of Justice.
Gallagher, C.A., and Dobrin, A. (2006). Deaths in juvenile justice residential facilities. Journal of Adolescent Health.
38(6):662–668
Page 15 of 17
145
Ezeihuoma, O. P., & Ebulum, G. C. (2023). The Incarceration of Juvenile Delinquents with Adult Offenders in Nigeria: Any Criminogenic and
Developmental Needs. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 10(5).131-147.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.105.14697
Giedd, J.N. (2008). The teen brain: Insights from neuroimaging. Journal of Adolescence Health,42, 335-343.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.01.007
Greve, W. (2001). Imprisonment of juveniles and adolescents: Deficits and demands for developmental research.
Applied Development Science, 5(1), 21-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S1532480XADS0501.3.
Hays, L.M. (2004). Juvenile Suicide in Confinement: A National survey. Alexandria, V.A: National Center on
Institution and Alternatives.
Henggeler, S.W., & Schoenwald, S.K. (2011). Social policy report: Evidence-based interventionsfor juvenile
offenders and juvenile justice policies that support them. Sharing Child and Youth development Knowledge, 25 (1),
1-6
Huey, S.J., Henggeler, S.W., Brondino, M.J., & Pickrel, S.G. (2000). Mechanism of change in multisystemic therapy:
Reducing delinquent behavior through therapist adherence andimproved family and peer functioning. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68 (3), 451-467. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.68.3.451.
Independent Police Conduct Authority (2012). Joint thematic review of young persons in police detention.
Wellington, NZ: IPCA
Institute for Crime and Justice Policy Research (2022) World Prison Brief: Nigeria.
https://www.prisonstudies.org/country/nigeria
Justice Policy Institute. (1997). The Risk Juvenile face when they are incarcerated with Adults. Washington D.C:
Justice Policy Institute
Kiriakidis, S.P. (2008). Bulling and suicide attempts among adolescents kept in custody. Crisis, 29(4), 216-218.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/0227-5910.29.4.216
Klietz, S.J., Borduin, C.M., & Schaeffer, C.M. (2010). Cost-benefit analysis of multisystemic therapy with serious
and violent juvenile offenders. Journal of Family Psychology. 24(5), 657-666.
htttp://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020838
Lahey, J. (2016, January 8). The steep costs of keeping juveniles in adult prisons. The Atlantic.
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/01/ the-cost-of-keeping-juveniles-in adult- prisons/423201/
Lambie, I., & Randell, I. (2013). The impact of incarceration on juvenile offenders. Clinical Psychology Review 33
(2013) 448-459.
Lipsey, M.W. (2009). The primary factors that characterize effective intervention with juvenile offenders: A
meta-analytic overview. Victims and Offenders, 4(1), 24-147. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15564880802612573.
Mallett, C.A., & Tedor, M.K. (2019). Juvenile delinquency: Pathways and prevention.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Marion, N.E., & Oliver, W.M. (2012). The public policy of crime and criminal justice. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson
Memory, J.M. (1989). Juvenile suicides in secure detention facilities: Correction of published rates. Death Studies
13(5):455–463
Mildred, J., & Plummer, C.A. (2009). Responding to child sexual abuse in the United States and Kenya: Child
protection and children’s rights. Children and Youth Services Review31(6), 601-608.
Page 16 of 17
146
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 10, Issue 5, May-2023
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Muanya, C., Akpunonu, S., & Onyenucheya, A. (2021, May 21). Addressing rising case of Suicide among teenagers
in Nigeria. The Guardian. https://guardian.ng/features/addressing-rising-cases-of-suicide-among-teenagers-in- nigeria/
Muncie, J. (2009). The United Nations, Children’s right and juvenile justice. In W. Taylor R, Earle, & R. Hester
(Eds). Youth justice handbook: Theory, policy and practice (pp.20-1) Cullompton: Willian.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Reforming Juvenile Justice: A Developmental
Approach. Washington, DC: The National Academies Presshttps://doi.org/10.17226/14685...
National Center for Health Statistics. 2(004). Health, United States, 2004: With Chartbook on Trends in the Health
of Americans. Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Department of Healthand Human Services Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention. (2015). Risk/needs assessments for youth. Model Programs Guide. https://
www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/RiskandNeeds.pdf
Okagbue, I. (n.d.). Children in conflict with the law: The Nigerian experience. Juvenile Justice Information
Portfolio-UNICEF Case Studies: Nigeria.https://www.unicef-irc.org/portfolios/documents/487_nigeria.htm
Pollard, J.A., Hawkins,D & Arthur, M.W. (1999). Risk and protective factors: Are both necessary to understand
diverse behavioral outcomes in adolescence. Social Work Research, 23(3): 145-15
Pomeroy, E.C., Green, D.L., & Kiam, R. (2001). Female juvenile offenders incarcerated as adults. Journal of Social
Work. 1(1): 101-115
Sawyer, W. (2019). Youth confinement: The whole pie 2019. Prison Policy Initiative
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/youth2019.html#:~:text=On%20any%20given%20day%2C
%20over,even%20having%20had%20a%20trial.
Shrader, M. (2003). Risk factors for delinquency: An overview. Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency and
Prevention. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/frd030127.pdf
Silva, J. (2010). Children behind bars: The global overuse of detention of children.The Human Right Watch World
Report 2016. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2016/country-chapters/africa-asia-europe/central-asia- middle-east/north.
Simpson, P.L., Reekie, J., Butler, T.G., Richters, J., Yap, L., Grant, L., Richards, A., &Donovan, B. (2016). Factors
associated with sexual coercion in a representative sampleof men in Australian prisons. Archives of Sexual
Behaviors. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26597645/
Spear, P. (2000). The adolescent brain and age-related behavioral manifestations. Neuroscience and
Biobehavioral Reviews, 24(4), 417-463. http//dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0149 7634(00)00014-2.
Steinberg, L., Cauffman, E., Woolard, J., Graham, S., & Banich, M. (2009). Are adolescents less mature than adults?
Minors’ access to abortion, the juvenile death penalty, and the alleged APA “flip-flop”. American Psychologist, 16
(7), 583-594. http://dx.doi/10.1037/a0014763
The Campaign for Youth Justice (2007). Jailing Juveniles: The Danger of Incarcerating Youth in Adult Jails in
America. The Campaign for Youth Justice. Retieved from http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/cfyj- reports/item/jailing-juveniles
The Council of State Government Justice Centers. (2015). Reducing recidivism and improving Other outcomes for
young adults in the juvenile and adult criminal justice systems.Austin, TX: Author.
The Humanitarian. (2002, August 26). Focus on the administration of juvenile justice.
https://www.thenewshumanitarian.org/fr/content/qui-sommes-nous
Page 17 of 17
147
Ezeihuoma, O. P., & Ebulum, G. C. (2023). The Incarceration of Juvenile Delinquents with Adult Offenders in Nigeria: Any Criminogenic and
Developmental Needs. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 10(5).131-147.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.105.14697
Troilo, M. (2018). Locking up youth with adults: An update. Prison Policy Initiative.
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2018/02/27/youth/
Underwood, L.A., & Washington, A. (2016). Mental illness and juvenile offenders. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4772248/
United Nations Children’s Fund. (2021). Estimating the number of children deprived of liberty in the
administration of justice. http://Children-in-detention_Estimating- the-number-of-children-deprived-of- liberty_2021.pdf
Van Ryzin, M.J., & Leve, I.D. (2012). Affiliation with delinquent peers as a mediator of effects Of multidimensional
treatment foster care for delinquent girls. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027336 (Advance online publication.
Vincent, G.M., Guy, L.S., & Grisso, T. (2012). Risk assessment instruments in juvenile justice: A guidebook for
implementation.
Walker, S.C., & Herting, J.R. (2020). The impact of pretrial juvenile detention on 12th month recidivism: A
matched comparison study. Crime & Delinquency https:// doi.org/10.1177/0011128720926115.
Winokur, K.P., Smith, A., Bontrager, S.R., & Blankenship, J.L. (2008). Juvenile recidivism and Length of stay.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 26,126-137
Yekini, A.O., & Salisu, M. (2013). Probation as non-custodial measures in Nigeria: making a Case for adult
probation service. African Journal of criminology and justice Studies: AJCJS, Vol.7,1&2