Juveniles' Competence to Stand Trial as Adults

Steinberg, Laurence; Grisso, Thomas; Woolard, Jennifer; Cauffman, Elizabeth; Scott, Elizabeth S.; Graham, Sandra; Lexcen, Fran; Reppucci, N. Dickon; Schwartz, Robert G.

doi:10.1002/j.2379-3988.2003.tb00023.x

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Normative adolescent samples are useful for making age-based judgment comparisons with normative adults (Woolard et al 1996). However, inclusion of institutionalized delinquent samples would allow for maturity of judgment comparisons that reflect within-group differences, potentially based on delinquency status (Grisso 1996; Mulvey and Peeples 1996; Woolard et al), though few studies to date do so (Fried and Reppucci 2001; Steinberg et al 2003)…”

Section: Next Stepsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A more extensive study included measures of psychosocial judgment factors in detained and non-detained adolescents and adults, although this work investigated competence to stand trial, as compared to antisocial decision making (Steinberg et al 2003). Research based on 927 adolescents in juvenile detention facilities and community settings and 466 young adults in jails and the community, found that judgment factors affected individuals’ functioning as defendants, regardless of their detained status.…”

Section: Next Stepsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Addressing gaps in the maturity of judgment literature: Age differences and delinquency.

Modecki

2008

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past decade, a majority of states have legislated to expand their capacity to try adolescents as adults [Griffin (2003). Trying and sentencing juveniles as adults: An analysis of state transfer and blended sentencing laws. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice]. In response, researchers have investigated factors that may affect adolescent culpability [Steinberg and Scott (Am Psychol 58(12):1009-1018, 2003)]. Research on immature judgment posits that psychosocial influences on adolescent decision processes results in reduced criminal responsibility [Cauffman and Steinberg (Behav Sci Law 18(6):741-760, 2000); Scott, Reppucci, and Woolard (Law Hum Behav 19(3):221-244, 1995); Steinberg and Cauffman (Law Hum Behav 20(3):249-272, 1996)]. The current study utilizes hypothetical vignettes and standardized measures of maturity of judgment (responsibility, temperance, and perspective) to examine gaps in previous maturity of judgment findings (Cauffman and Steinberg 2000). This work suggests that adolescents (ages 14-17) display less responsibility and perspective relative to college students (ages 18-21), young-adults (ages 22-27), and adults (ages 28-40). Further, this research finds no maturity of judgment differences between delinquent and non-delinquent youth, but does find significant maturity of judgment differences between high and low delinquency male youth. Finally, results show that maturity of judgment predicts self-reported delinquency beyond the contributions of age, gender, race, education level, SES, and antisocial decision making. Implications for the juvenile justice system are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Next Stepsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Next Stepsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Addressing gaps in the maturity of judgment literature: Age differences and delinquency.

Modecki

2008

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, youths of color are perceived as being older than White youths, which subsequently affects their likelihood of receiving sanctions. Further, stakeholders should try to understand that youths’ psychosocial immaturity leaves them vulnerable to false confessions and susceptibility to coercion ( Arndorfer et al, 2015 ; Malloy et al, 2014 ) as well as competency issues ( Grisso et al, 2003 ; Steinberg et al, 2003 ; Steinberg & Scott, 2003 ). As such, youths may not fully understand the legal consequences of their actions or their legal rights ( Grisso et al, 2003 ; Steinberg et al, 2003 ).…”

Section: Practical and Clinical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Further, stakeholders should try to understand that youths’ psychosocial immaturity leaves them vulnerable to false confessions and susceptibility to coercion ( Arndorfer et al, 2015 ; Malloy et al, 2014 ) as well as competency issues ( Grisso et al, 2003 ; Steinberg et al, 2003 ; Steinberg & Scott, 2003 ). As such, youths may not fully understand the legal consequences of their actions or their legal rights ( Grisso et al, 2003 ; Steinberg et al, 2003 ). As mentioned previously, collaboration with multidisciplinary teams—including researchers—in various domains will create innovative solutions to justice system disparities.…”

Section: Practical and Clinical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adolescent Contact, Lasting Impact? Lessons Learned From Two Longitudinal Studies Spanning 20 Years of Developmental Science Research With Justice-System-Involved Youths

Cauffman,

Gillespie,

Beardslee

et al. 2023

Psychol Sci Public Interest

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we summarize key findings from 20 years of research conducted at the intersection of developmental psychology and juvenile justice in the United States. We predominantly examine data from two large-scale, multisite longitudinal studies involving justice-system-involved adolescents—the Pathways to Desistance study and the Crossroads study. Topics of discussion include predictors of offending and desistance from crime; youth outcomes and psychosocial needs; and emerging research, programs, and policy initiatives. First, individual-level (e.g., age, psychosocial maturity) and contextual-level (e.g., antisocial peers, exposure to violence) risk factors associated with offending are explored. Second, we discuss short-term and long-term outcomes of justice-system contact for youths engaging in moderate offenses. We highlight main findings from the Crossroads study indicating that youths who are sanctioned by the justice system at their first arrest have worse outcomes than youths who are diverted from formal processing. Additionally, we discuss the high prevalence of youths’ exposure to violence and mental health disorders as well as the differential treatment of youths of color in the justice system. Third, we extend the conversation to justice-system-involved young adults and discuss emerging, innovative legal solutions, including young adult courts. Last, we discuss real-world implications of these findings.

show abstract

Maturity of Judgment

Modecki¹

2018

Encyclopedia of Adolescence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Juveniles' Competence to Stand Trial as Adults

Cited by 4 publications

References 9 publications

Addressing gaps in the maturity of judgment literature: Age differences and delinquency.

Addressing gaps in the maturity of judgment literature: Age differences and delinquency.

Adolescent Contact, Lasting Impact? Lessons Learned From Two Longitudinal Studies Spanning 20 Years of Developmental Science Research With Justice-System-Involved Youths

Maturity of Judgment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About