Evaluating adolescent decision making in legal contexts.

Abstract

Challenges the use by policy researchers of a model for comparing adolescent and adult decision making that is based on informed consent standards. An expanded decision-making framework designed to evaluate "judgment" in adults and adolescents can better test the empirical basis of paternalistic legal policies. The theoretical and empirical literature on the informed consent framework is critiqued and an alternative framework incorporating judgment factors is proposed. Three judgment factors--temporal perspective, attitude toward risk, and peer and parental influence--and their effects on decision making are explored. Finally, implications for future research are analyzed in several decision-making contexts.Adolescents pose a dilemma for legal policymakers. Traditionally they have been classified with younger children as minors, and been denied legal fights and privileges accorded to adults. However, most would agree that presumptions of vulnerability, dependence, and incompetence that justify paternalistic legal policies seem less valid when applied to adolescents (Zimring, 1982). Some observers (e.g., Melton, 1983aMelton, , 1983b have argued that adolescents' legal treatment is unduly restrictive and that they should be given more of the fights and privileges * Several of the ideas in this article were originally presented by the fh'st author and were published as part of a symposium on competence (see Scott, 1992). The current article expands and refines these ideas, provides a more substantial research base, and suggests several future research directions. We thank

What Do Juvenile Offenders Know About Being Tried as Adults? Implications for Deterrence

“…Indeed, many thought that they would only get "slap on the wrist" sentences from the juvenile court.These results are consistent with those of a recent Canadian study (Peterson-Badali, Ruck, & Koegl, 2001) finding that many juvenile offenders did not think that they would receive a serious punishment if apprehended.Two reasons may explain these inaccurate perceptions. First, the psychosocial immaturity of juveniles, including their impulsivity, limited time perspective, and the tendency to engage in risk-taking (see Scott, Reppucci, & Woolard, 1995;Steinberg & Cauffman, 1996), may make juveniles less likely to perceive accurately the likelihood of apprehension and serious punishment. Second, the juveniles' previous experiences in the juvenile justice system may have communicated the wrong message that the consequences of committing crimes as a juvenile were insignificant.…”

Legal, individual, and environmental predictors of court disposition in a sample of serious adolescent offenders.

“…Specifically, relative to adults, juveniles are impaired in their levels of personal responsibility, have difficulty seeing things in long-term perspective, are less likely to look at things from the perspective of others, and have more difficulty restraining their aggressive impulses (Scott, Reppucci, & Woolard, 1995;Steinberg & Cauffman, 1996). As a consequence, juveniles are less mature than adults in ways that impair their judgment and make them inherently less accountable for their actions Steinberg & Cauffman, 1999, 2000Steinberg & Scott, 2003).…”

Juveniles' competence to stand trial: A comparison of adolescents' and adults' capacities as trial defendants.

“…Differences between adolescents and adults are not only cognitive, but also involve aspects of psychosocial maturation that include progress toward greater future orientation, better risk perception, and less susceptibility to peer influence. Several authors have hypothesized that these developmental factors could result in differences between adolescents' and adults' decisionmaking about important rights in the adjudicative process (Cauffman & Steinberg, 2000;Scott, 1992;Scott, Reppucci, & Woolard, 1995;Steinberg & Cauffman, 1996).…”