Court Opinion

ID: 9428538
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:24:05.455458+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:14.113606
License: Public Domain

Justice Powell,
concurring in the judgment.
The only question presented in this case is whether an offender, the respondent, serving a sentence under the Federal Youth Corrections Act (YCA), 18 U. S. C. §5005 et seq., and thereafter sentenced to a consecutive term of imprisonment as an adult, must nevertheless be separated from other adult offenders for the remainder of his sentence under that Act. I agree with the Court that the answer to this question must be in the negative. I write separately because it seems to me that the Court’s opinion, in addressing broadly the authority of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons (the Director), may be read as unnecessarily curtailing his authority and discretion to act in other cases.
It was a District Court that imposed the consecutive adult term on respondent, but it was the Director who made the decision to treat respondent as an adult prisoner no longer entitled to be segregated from adult offenders. I agree with the Court as to the authority of the District Court to impose the consecutive adult term of imprisonment. I confine this concurrence to the issue of authority of the Director.
Respondent pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in 1974. The court sentenced him to 10 years of custody under the YCA. In 1975 respondent was convicted of assaulting a *222federal guard with a dangerous weapon. He was sentenced to a consecutive 10-year term. The District Court found “that the [respondent] will not benefit any further under the provisions of the Youth Offenders Act and decline[d] to sentence under said act.” After it received a report from the Bureau of Prisons, however, the court took two additional actions. It reduced respondent’s sentence to five and one-half years, and it recommended — but did not order — that respondent “be transferred from [the] Federal Youth Center ... to a facility providing greater security.” In 1977 respondent again was convicted of assaulting a federal guard. He again was given consecutive adult sentencing. Two courts thus certified that respondent had shown an incorrigibility and capacity for violence that warrants adult treatment.
In my view, certainly under these circumstances, the Director had the authority to treat the respondent as an adult offender. The YCA directs that youth offenders are to “undergo treatment in institutions of maximum security, •medium security, or minimum security types . . . .” 18 U. S. C. §5011. “ ‘[Treatment’ means corrective and preventive guidance and training designed to protect the public by correcting the antisocial tendencies of youth offenders . . . .” § 5006(f). The Director, inter alia, may “order the committed youth offender confined and afforded treatment under such conditions as he believes best designed for the protection of the public.” § 5015(a)(3) (emphasis added). “The Director may transfer at any time a committed youth offender from one agency or institution to any other agency or institution.” § 5015(b) (emphasis added). “Insofar as practical,. . . youth offenders shall be segregated from other offenders . . . .” §5011 (emphasis added).
Thus, the express language of YCA vests broad discretion in the Director. It contains no mandatory directions that youth segregation must continue indefinitely no matter how clearly appropriate adult treatment may be. The statutory emphasis instead is on flexibility and individualized treat*223ment. See 18 U. S. C. §§5005, 5014, 5016, 5017, 5018, and 5020. The YCA does require youth offenders to be separated from adult offenders, but this command is qualified by the phrase “[ijnsofar as practical.” We need not in this case consider the limits on the discretion thus conferred. This is an easy case in view of respondent’s convictions as an adult offender and the findings of the federal courts. In these circumstances the Director plainly had the authority — indeed the duty — to transfer respondent from the Federal Youth Center to a “facility providing greater security.” We properly defer to the Director’s judgment that continued segregation from adult offenders is no longer “practical” under such circumstances. Even in the absence of subsequent felony convictions, there could be occasions when, because of a youth offender’s incorrigibility and threat to the safety of others, it would be highly impractical to continue his segregation in a youth center. As we are not confronted with such a situation in this case, I would limit our decision to the record before us and defer to another day a general discussion of the Director’s authority.