Assessing the Legitimacy of Competence to Stand Trial in Juvenile Court

Abstract

The requirement that juveniles be competent to stand trial prior to adjudication in juvenile court has only recently been solidified via case law and/or statutory law. It is currently unclear as to whether and how the presence of a specific juvenile competency to stand trial (CST) statute affects how court actors understand and make use of CST in a juvenile court context. Through interviews with 48 juvenile court officials across two states and three juvenile court jurisdictions, we find that the presence or absence of specific juvenile CST guidelines differentially shapes court officials' perceptions of the legitimacy of CST concerns and consequently, their case processing strategies and decisions. This exploratory study serves to critically question the role of this new due process protection in a juvenile court context that presumes youthfulness or immaturity of offenders.

Functional Deficits in Juveniles Evaluated for Adjudicative Competence

“…Although competence became relevant to youth as due process protections were extended to the juvenile courts in the 1960s (In re Gault, 1967; Kent v. United States , 1966), it was not until the “get tough” era of the 1990s, when more and younger youth began facing more adversarial processes and punitive outcomes, that the question of competence was increasingly raised in the juvenile courts (Bonnie & Grisso, 2000; Grisso, 2003). Despite this increase, attorneys may not raise the question of competence as often as they have actual concerns about a youth’s AC (Viljoen et al, 2010), suggesting juvenile AC is neither appropriately nor sufficiently addressed (Bryant et al, 2015; Grossi et al, 2016; Harvey, 2011).…”

Young People’s Knowledge and Understanding of the Youth Justice System in New Zealand: A Community Sample

“…Considering the issue or murder or manslaughter, these particular crimes are considered too serious to be dealt with by the Youth Court, and young people facing these proceedings would do so in the High Court, where they would be tried as adults (Criminal Procedure Act 2011). However, international research has outlined that those 13 years and younger are at heightened risk of having trial-related impairments, in accordance with developmental timetables, such that the literature base considers this age group almost always incompetent or unfit to stand trial due to developmental level (Bath & Gerring, 2014;Bonnie & Grisso, 2000;Bryant, Matthews, & Wilhelmsen, 2015;Feld, 2017;Grisso et al, 2003;Larson & Grisso, 2011;Redding & Fuller, 2004;Steinberg & Scott, 2003;.…”

“…Research has shown that formal laws shapes court process, and confers the appropriateness of due process to protect young people (Bryant et al, 2015). Furthermore, research on court decision-making demonstrates that formalised laws outlining appropriate practises, in this case fitness evaluations on the basis of developmental level, increase the likelihood that professionals are willing to implement that practise (Bryant et al, 2015).…”

“…Fourth, it raises awareness for the role of development, and gives clinicians substantiated means to push for further assessment. These strategies for improvement are supported by Bryant et al (2015) who found officials who were better socialised and exposed to competency evaluations had a more sophisticated understanding of the strategies that were available when working with young people. Lastly, the FST-SSIT would help consolidate interdisciplinary differences in fitness evaluations as judges, lawyers, psychologists and psychiatrists can all be involved at various stages in the process of fitness evaluations.…”