No abstract

No abstract

I examine the discursive identity construction of “childish” adult defendants in court as an arena of negotiation involving judges, lawyers, psychiatrists, probation service professionals, plaintiffs and defendants. Being categorized a “childish” defendant can be legally constructed as either contributing to the aggravation of punishment, or conversely, to mitigating the sentence. Based on court rulings retrieved from an Israeli judicial database, four categories of such “childish defendants” are identified and discussed: the innocent childish defendant, the influenced childish defendant, the childish defendant who is unable to control his/her behavior, and the childish defendant who lacks boundaries, with varying consequences for the court’s exercise of stringency, leniency, and other forms of social control. I conclude by discussing the findings’ implications for political intersections of law and age, and specifically childhood. The construction of childishness, as it takes place in courts, is further discussed as a means of control that transcends biological age.