Potential Impact of Research on Adolescent Development on Juvenile Judge Decision‐making

Abstract

This paper discusses how biological and psychological literature on the developmental differences between juveniles and adults may affect juvenile judges in their “dual role” as retributive and rehabilitative decision‐makers in juvenile cases, specifically focusing on sentencing. Particularly, it discusses potential influences of this research on adolescent development regarding four factors known to be integral in juvenile judge decision‐making: legal factors, characteristics of juvenile offenders, and individual structural and social contexts in which judges’ decisions are made. To conclude, implications and recommendations stemming from this discussion are considered.

A mixed-methods analysis of judges’ views and decision-making surrounding scientific evidence in criminal sentencing

“…The inherent interpretive di culty posed by biobehavioral explanations for behavior is particularly relevant in the context of the Daubert standard, which requires judges to act as gatekeepers, ensuring the reliability and relevance of scienti c evidence presented in court (4,6). Given the apparent challenges judges face as they process scienti c information through their own cognitive lters, as also shown in previous studies (31,44), a critical question arises: how can the criminal-legal system equip judges with the requisite scienti c knowledge as mandated by the Daubert standard?…”

“…Judges that hold a deterministic view of human behavior may be more likely to opt for less punitive sentencing approaches, while beliefs in the idea that humans are free to determine their actions and lives more broadly (which is may sometimes be intertwined with conservative sociopolitical stances and with religiosity) may be more supportive of retribution as a way to restore justice (26,30). Other characteristics, such as prior education, the extent of scienti c training, and personal experiences with mental disorders, may also in uence the cognitive lters through which decision-makers process scienti c information and punishment decisions (31)(32)(33)(34)(35).…”