Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T20:42:27.722Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - Capacity, Competence, and the Juvenile Defendant: Implications for Research and Policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2009

Jennifer L. Woolard
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor of Criminology and Psychology University of Florida's Center for Studies in Criminology and Law
Bette L. Bottoms
Affiliation:
University of Illinois, Chicago
Margaret Bull Kovera
Affiliation:
Florida International University
Bradley D. McAuliff
Affiliation:
University of Nebraska, Lincoln
Get access

Summary

Some form of delinquent activity is a common aspect of development for a majority of youth. For many, it appears to represent a time-delimited activity of adolescence that doesn't necessarily come to the attention of a formal system of social control (Moffit, 1993). However, a significant proportion of adolescents comes into contact with the justice system as a result of this behavior. In 1994, juvenile courts saw 1.75 million delinquency cases, with approximately 980,000 cases processed formally through a petition for an adjudicatory or waiver hearing (Stahl et al., 1999). For those adolescents who do come into contact with it, the justice system can represent a significant intervention in their lives (see Salekin and Fried and Reppucci, this volume, for a discussion of factors that contribute to juvenile violence).

The notion that adolescents are immature, have less decision-making capacity, and therefore should be treated differently than adults has permeated the juvenile justice system since its inception in 1899. Historical differences between the juvenile and adult criminal justice systems have been based on a fundamental notion about adolescent development and the appropriate societal response. In the criminal system, adults are presumed to be autonomous, competent persons who are able to make their own decisions about behavior and are held accountable for their choices. Because of their ongoing cognitive and social development, however, juveniles are considered less able to make competent decisions, and therefore are held less culpable and less accountable for their actions.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramovitch, R., Higgins-Biss, K., & Biss, S. (1993). Young persons' comprehension of waivers in criminal proceedings. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 35, 309–322Google Scholar
Abramovitch, R., Peterson-Badali, M., & Rohan, M. (1995). Young people's understanding and assertion of their rights to silence and legal counsel. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 37, 1–18Google Scholar
Allen, J. P., Aber, J. L., & Leadbeater, B. J. (1990). Adolescent problem behaviors: The influence of attachment and autonomy. Pediatric Clinics of North America, 13, 455–467Google ScholarPubMed
Allen, J. P., Leadbeater, B. J., & Aber, J. L. (1994). The development of problem behavior syndromes in at-risk adolescents. Development and Psychopathology, 6, 323–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambuel, B., & Rappaport, J. (1992). Developmental trends in adolescents' psychological and legal competence to consent to abortion. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 129–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American Bar Association Juvenile Justice Center. (1995). A call for justice: An assessment of access to counsel and quality of representation in delinquency proceedings. Washington, DC: American Bar Association
Appelbaum, P. S., & Grisso, T. (1988). Assessing patients' capacities to consent to treatment. New England Journal of Medicine, 319, 1635–1638CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Belter, R. W., & Grisso, T. (1984). Children's recognition of rights violations in counseling. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 15, 899–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benthin, A. C., Slovic, P., & Severson, H. (1993). A psychometric study of adolescent risk perception. Journal of Adolescence, 16, 153–168CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berndt, T. J. (1979). Developmental changes in conformity to peers and parents. Developmental Psychology, 15, 608–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beyth-Marom, R., Austin, L., Fischhoff, B., Palmgren, C., & Quadrel, M. J. (1992). Perceived consequences of risky behaviors: Adults and adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 29, 549–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonnie, R. J. (1993). The competence of criminal defendants: Beyond Dusky and Drope. University of Miami Law Review, 47, 540–601Google Scholar
Bonnie, R. J., & Grisso, R. (2000). Adjudicative competence and youthful offenders. In T. Grisso & R. Schwartz (Eds.), Youth on trial (pp. 73–103). Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519 (1975)
Buss, E. (1996). “You're my what?” The problems of children's misperceptions of their lawyers' roles. Fordham Law Review, 64, 1699–1762Google Scholar
Buss, E. (2000). Promoting juveniles' competence as defendants. In T. Grisso & R. Schwartz (Eds.), Youth on trial (pp. 243–265). Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Caeti, T. J., Hemmens, C., & Burton, V. S. (1996). Juvenile right to counsel: A national comparison of state legal codes. American Journal of Criminal Law, 23, 611–632Google Scholar
Clarke, S. H., & Koch, G. (1980). Juvenile court: Therapy or crime control, and do lawyers make a difference? Law and Society Review, 14, 263–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, D. K. (1997). Juveniles' understanding of trial-related information: Are they competent defendants? Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 15, 167–1803.0.CO;2-E>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cowden, V. L., & McKee, G. R. (1995). Competency to stand trial in juvenile delinquency proceedings: Cognitive maturity and the attorney–client relationship. University of Louisville Journal of Law, 33, 629–651Google Scholar
Davis, S. M. (1993–1994). The role of the attorney in child advocacy. Journal of Family Law, 32, 817–831Google Scholar
Deardorff, J. (1999, April 7). Child's statement on killing disputed: 10-year-old boy allegedly confessed. Chicago Tribune, p. 1
Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1975)
Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960)
Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 (1979)
Federle, K. H. (1996). The ethics of empowerment: Rethinking the role of lawyers in interviewing and counseling the child client. Fordham Law Review, 64, 1655–1697Google Scholar
Feld, B. C. (1988). In re Gault revisited: A cross-state comparison of the right to counsel in juvenile court. Crime & Delinquency, 34, 393–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, A., & Douglas, A. (1970). A study of juvenile waiver. San Diego Law Review, 7, 39–54Google Scholar
Furby, L., & Beyth-Marom, R. (1992). Risk-taking in adolescence: A decision-making perspective. Developmental Review, 12, 1–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallegos v. Colorado, 370 U.S. 49 (1962)
Gardner, W., Scherer, D., & Tester, M. (1989). Asserting scientific authority: Cognitive development and adolescent legal rights. American Psychologist, 44, 895–902CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Golding, S., Roesch, R., & & Schreiber, J. (1984). Assessment and conceptualization of competency to stand trial: Preliminary data on the Interdisciplinary Fitness Interview. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 321–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, A. L. (1986). Future-time perspective in adolescence: The present of things future revisited. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 15, 99–113CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffin, P., Torbet, P., & Szymanski, L. (1998). Trying juveniles as adults in criminal court: An analysis of state transfer provisions. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Grisso, T. (1981). Juveniles' waiver of rights. New York: Plenum Press
Grisso, T. (1997). The competence of adolescents as trial defendants. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 3, 3–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grisso, T. (1998). Forensic evaluation of juveniles. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press
Grisso, T. (2000). Adolescents' competence in the adjudicative process. In T. Grisso & R. Schwartz (Eds.), Youth on trial (pp. 139–171). Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Grisso, T., Miller, M. O., & Sales, B. (1987). Competency to stand trial in juvenile court. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 10, 1–20CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grisso, T., & Vierling, L. (1978). Minors' consent to treatment: A developmental perspective. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 9, 421–427CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guggenheim, M. (1996). A paradigm for determining the role of counsel for children. Fordham Law Review, 64, 1399–1433Google Scholar
Hafen, J. O. (1993). Children's rights and legal representation – The proper roles of children, parents, and attorneys. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, & Public Policy, 7, 423–463Google Scholar
Hanna, J. (1998, August 30). Kids' “competence” a tender issue for courts. Chicago Tribune, p. 1
In re Causey, 363 So. 2d 472 (La. 1978)
In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967)
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970)
Kaser-Boyd, N., Adleman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (1985). Minors' ability to identify risks and benefits of therapy. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 16, 411–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaser-Boyd, N., Adelman, H. S., Taylor, L., & Nelson, P. (1986). Children's understanding of risks and benefits of psychotherapy. Clinical Child Psychology, 15, 165–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, R., & Segal, D. (1973). The role of the attorney in juvenile court proceedings: A non-polar approach. The Georgetown Law Journal, 61, 1400–1424Google Scholar
Kent v. U. S., 383 U.S. 541 (1966)
Koegl, C. J. (1997). Contextual and motivational factors affecting young offenders' use of legal rights. Unpublished master's thesis
Leon, J. S. (1978). Recent developments in legal representation of children: A growing concern with the concept of capacity. Canadian Journal of Family Law, 1, 375–434Google Scholar
Lewis, C. C. (1980). A comparison of minors' and adults' pregnancy decisions. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 50, 446–453CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lipsitt, P., Lelos, D., & McGarry, A. L. (1971). Competency for trial: A screening instrument. American Journal of Psychiatry, 128, 137–141CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528 (1971)
Melton, G. (1983). Toward “personhood” for adolescents: Autonomy and privacy as values in public policy. American Psychologist, 38, 99–103CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Melton, G. (1984). Developmental psychology and the law: The state of the art. Journal of Family Law, 22, 445–482Google Scholar
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674–701CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nurmi, J. (1991). How do adolescents see their future? A review of the development of future orientation and planning. Developmental Review, 11, 1–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otto, R. K., Poythress, N. G., Nicholson, R. A., Edens, J. F., Monahan, J., Bonnie, R. J., Hoge, S. K., & Eisenberg, M. (1998). Psychometric properties of the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-Criminal Adjudication (MacCAT-CA). Psychological Assessment, 10, 435–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearse, J., Gudjonnson, G. H., Clare, I. C. H., & Rutter, S. (1998). Police interviewing and psychological vulnerabilities: Predicting the likelihood of a confession. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 8, 1–213.0.CO;2-D>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
People v. Lara, 432 P.2d 202 (1967)
Peterson-Badali, M., & Abramovitch, R., (1993). Grade-related changes in young people's reasoning about plea decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 537–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson-Badali, M., Abramovitch, R., Koegl, C. J., & Ruck, M. D., (1997). Young people's experience of the Canadian youth justice system: Interacting with police and legal counsel. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 17, 455–4653.0.CO;2-R>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson-Badali, M., & Koegl, C. J. (1998). Young people's knowledge of the Young Offenders Act and the youth justice system. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 40, 127–152Google Scholar
Possley, M. (1998, August 30). How cops got boys to talk. Chicago Tribune, p. 1
Poythress, N., Nicholson, R., Otto, R. K., Edens, J. F., Bonnie, R. J., Monahan, J., & Hoge, S. K. (1999). The MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool – Criminal Adjudication: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources
Puzzanchera, C., Stahl, A., Finnegan, T., Snyder, H., Poole, R., & Tierney, N. (2000). Juvenile court statistics 1997. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Savitsky, J., & Karras, D. (1984). Competency to stand trial among adolescents. Adolescence, 19, 349–358Google ScholarPubMed
Scott, E. S., Reppucci, N. D., & Woolard, J. L. (1995). Evaluating adolescent decision making in legal contexts. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 221–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sickmund, M., Snyder, H., & Poe-Yamagata, E. (1997). Juvenile offenders and victims: 1997 update on violence. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Slobogin, C., Fondacaro, M., & Woolard, J. L. (1999). Juvenile justice reform: The promise of Kansas v. Hendricks for children. University of Wisconsin Law Review, 1999, 186–226
Snyder, H. N. (1999). Juvenile arrests 1998. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Stahl, A. L., Sickmund, M., Finnegan, T. A., Snyder, H. N., Poole, R. S., & Tierney, N. (1999). Juvenile court statistics 1996. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Steadman, H. J., & Hartstone, E. (1983). Defendants incompetent to stand trial. In J. Monahan & H. J. Steadman (Eds.), Mentally disordered offenders: Perspectives from law and social science (pp. 39–62). New York: Plenum PressCrossRef
Steinberg, L., & Cauffman, E. (1996). Maturity of judgment in adolescence: Psychosocial factors in adolescent decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 249–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinberg, L., & Silverberg, S. B. (1986). The vicissitudes of autonomy in early adolescence. Child Development, 57, 841–851CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tobey, A., Grisso, T., & Schwartz, R. (2000). Youths' trial participation as seen by youths and their attorneys: An exploration of competence based issues. In T. Grisso & R. Schwartz (Eds.), Youth on trial (pp. 225–241). Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Weithorn, L. A., & Campbell, S. A. (1982). The competency of children to make informed treatment decisions. Child Development, 53, 1589–1598CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wildman, R. (1978). The Georgia Court Competency Test (GCCT): An attempt to develop a rapid, quantitative measure of fitness for trial. Unpublished manuscript
Wilson, T. (1999, February 23). Judge to decide whether boy, 10, is fit to stand trial for murder. Chicago Tribune, p. 4
Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)
Woolard, J. L., & Reppucci, N. D. (1998, August). Juvenile competence: Judgment and decision making in legal contexts. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association Convention, San Francisco
Woolard, J. L., & Reppucci, N. D. (2000). Researching juveniles' capacities as defendants. In T. Grisso & R. Schwartz (Eds.), Youth on trial (pp. 173–191). Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Woolard, J. L., Reppucci, N. D., & Redding, R. E. (1996). Theoretical and methodological issues in studying children's capacities in legal contexts. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 219–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolard, J. L., Reppucci, N. D., & Scott, E. S. (1996). Judgment Assessment Tool – Adolescents. Unpublished manual
Worrell, C. (1985). Pretrial detention of juveniles: Denial of equal protection masked by the parens patriae doctrine. Yale Law Journal, 95, 174–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×