Landmark Legislative Trends in Juvenile Justice: An Update and Primer for Child and Adolescent Psychiatrists

Bath, Eraka; Sidhu, Shawn S.; Stepanyan, Sofia T.

doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2013.03.017

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It would be fundamentally unfair to allow unfit youth to face criminal proceedings. However, concerns raised internationally have emphasised that youth (under 14 years of age in particular), due to immaturity, are at increased risk of being unfit to stand trial and could face punitive criminal proceedings in the context of societal attitudes that support harsher penalties for youth offending (Bath, Sidhu, & Stepanyan, 2013;Grisso, 2003;Steinberg, 2009;Steinberg, Cauffman, Wollard, Sandra, & Marie, 2009) In New Zealand the adjudication of youth facing criminal charges proceeds by way of the Children, Young Persons and their Families Act (1989) or CYPF Act, which stipulates that the age of criminal responsibility is 10 years, and that children aged 10 through to 14 years cannot be prosecuted except for the charge of murder or manslaughter, and could face imprisonment in a youth justice facility if found guilty. Those aged between 14 and 17 years can be charged and prosecuted for any offence in the Youth Court.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

New Zealand Youth Fitness to Stand Trial: The Impact of Age, Immaturity and Diagnosis on Evaluator Opinions and Court Determinations

Tan

Friedman

Armstrong³

et al. 2017

Psychiatry, Psychology and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International research suggests that a proportion of youth facing legal charges are at risk of being unfit (or incompetent) to stand trial. In New Zealand, only a fraction of youth coming before Youth Court are referred for fitness to stand trial evaluations. Amid debate surrounding notions that youth offending could be deterred by providing harsher penalties, it is important to consider fitness to stand trial in youth facing criminal proceedings. This study sought to capture a cross-sectional view of how fitness (competency) to stand trial is addressed in the Youth Court, and how evaluator opinions relate to ultimate court findings. A retrospective review of reports for fitness to stand trial in 79 youth consecutively referred to the Regional Youth Forensic Service from 2010 to 2015 was conducted. Data were combined with Youth Court outcomes obtained from the Ministry of Justice. The mean age is 15.6 years. Intellectual disability is associated with unfit opinions and legal findings (p D .002 and p D .03, respectively), and cases disposed through the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003. Immaturity itself does not appear to have a significant effect on evaluator opinions or court findings of fitness to stand trial. The majority of the referred youth were both opined and found fit.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

New Zealand Youth Fitness to Stand Trial: The Impact of Age, Immaturity and Diagnosis on Evaluator Opinions and Court Determinations

Tan

Friedman

Armstrong³

et al. 2017

Psychiatry, Psychology and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Findings from developmental and neuroscience research have informed four recent US Supreme Court decisions, reflecting an evolving understanding of the interplay among criminal culpability, neurocognitive development, and adolescent behavior (Bath et al , 2013). These trends in jurisprudence have resulted in enhanced due-process protections for children and have pushed the justice system toward a developmental approach in considering culpability.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Specifically, Roper v. Simmons , 543 U.S. 551 (2005), abolished the juvenile death penalty. Subsequently, Graham v. Florida , 130 S. Ct. 2011 (2010), found that sentencing adolescents to life without parole for a crime other than homicide violates the 8th Amendment; Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) extended the Graham decision to abolish mandatory life without parole for all youth and require judicial consideration of all mitigation, including age and psychosocial factors, before life without parole can be imposed; and the recent Montgomery v. Louisiana case (2016) applied Miller retroactively (Bath et al , 2013). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Setting a minimum age for juvenile justice jurisdiction in California

Barnert¹,

Abrams²,

Maxson³

et al. 2017

IJPH

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Despite the existence of minimum age laws for juvenile justice jurisdiction in 18 US states, California has no explicit law that protects children (i.e. youth less than 12 years old) from being processed in the juvenile justice system. In the absence of a minimum age law, California lags behind other states and international practice and standards. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach In this policy brief, academics across the University of California campuses examine current evidence, theory, and policy related to the minimum age of juvenile justice jurisdiction. Findings Existing evidence suggests that children lack the cognitive maturity to comprehend or benefit from formal juvenile justice processing, and diverting children from the system altogether is likely to be more beneficial for the child and for public safety. Research limitations/implications Based on current evidence and theory, the authors argue that minimum age legislation that protects children from contact with the juvenile justice system and treats them as children in need of services and support, rather than as delinquents or criminals, is an important policy goal for California and for other national and international jurisdictions lacking a minimum age law. Originality/value California has no law specifying a minimum age for juvenile justice jurisdiction, meaning that young children of any age can be processed in the juvenile justice system. This policy brief provides a rationale for a minimum age law in California and other states and jurisdictions without one. Paper type Conceptual paper

show abstract

Advances in juvenile adjudicative competence: A 10‐year update

Cunningham

2020

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article provides a comprehensive review of juvenile adjudicative competence (AC) literature published between 2010 and 2019. Publications included in this article are peer‐reviewed and disseminate original research or provide new commentary on forensic evaluation, policy, or theory. The review is organized in the following sequence: (i) factors associated with juvenile AC, (ii) evaluating juvenile AC (assessment tools and techniques, quality of evaluations, evaluation recommendations), (iii) remediation (remediation recommendations), (iv) systemic issues (inconsistency in statutes and court processes, defense attorneys' concerns about AC, age‐related issues, developmental immaturity), and (v) special topics (special populations, international research). Systemic processes and variability in statutes have contributed to current concerns regarding reliability of juvenile AC evaluation and remediation. Clear and consistent standards must be developed to address these problems. Continued research is necessary to clarify how to accurately assess juvenile AC and appropriately remediate those adjudicated incompetent. Practice and policy implications as well as future directions for research are discussed.

show abstract

Landmark Legislative Trends in Juvenile Justice: An Update and Primer for Child and Adolescent Psychiatrists

Cited by 3 publications

References 4 publications

New Zealand Youth Fitness to Stand Trial: The Impact of Age, Immaturity and Diagnosis on Evaluator Opinions and Court Determinations

New Zealand Youth Fitness to Stand Trial: The Impact of Age, Immaturity and Diagnosis on Evaluator Opinions and Court Determinations

Setting a minimum age for juvenile justice jurisdiction in California

Advances in juvenile adjudicative competence: A 10‐year update

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About