Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
March 2012
Controversies:
At present, there are two opposing views regarding the status of adolescents in the legal system. The adolescent-as-child view contends that adolescents are by nature substantially different from adults and, as such, separate legal rights and standards should be applied to address the unique differences of this special population. The alternative view, adolescents-as-adults, argue that adolescents are developmentally comparable to adults, therefore similar legal measures should be taken when trying and sentencing adolescent offenders. In response to this, there is evidence for and against the view that adolescents should be tried as adults.
Adolescence is a tumultuous time, full or change and transformation... The adultification of youth (or waiver to adult court) is unduly harsh for youth whose brains have not fully formed. Dr. Allison Burke
Evidence For.
Adolescents between the ages of 14 and 16 should be held responsible for their actions, particularly in the case of serious crimes (e.g. murder). This type of argument tends to be endorsed by a lay audience, which is generally unaware of the circumstances unique to adolescent development. Ultimately, proponents of this view contend that adolescents have reached the developmental stage where they have acquired the cognitive abilities necessary to understand the fundamental differences between good and bad. In the legal process, juvenile offenders can be transferred and tried under the adult criminal justice system. Young offenders can be transferred from juvenile to adult courts through a Judicial Waiver, Direct File, or Statutory Exclusion. A juvenile court judge may decide to transfer the case (called waiving jurisdiction), based on a variety of factors, including the seriousness of the offense, the offenders level of maturity, and likelihood of rehabilitation. Under statutory exclusion, certain categories of juveniles are automatically excluded from juvenile court. These categories are typically determined by some combination of age and offense (e.g., an individual is accused of armed robbery and is 14-years old; Steinberg, 2000).
Evidence Against.
Opponents of the aforementioned perspective take the stance of adolescents as child, arguing that young offenders should be kept out of adult criminal courts and should be tried strictly within the juvenile system. Many even make the assumption of doli incapax, which presumes that children are not able to form a guilty mind, and therefore, are incapable of crime under legislation or common law (Becroft, 2006). In fact, laws have been formalized to protect adolescents against the various mechanisms put in place to transfer juvenile cases from the young offender courts to the adult criminal justice system. Under such guidelines children are considered a vulnerable group, affording them separate privileges. It has been argued that the age of criminal responsibility should be determined by individual assessments of a child or adolescents level of psychological maturation, relative to his or her level of responsibility, impulsivity, decision-making, understanding of consequences, and capacity for rehabilitation (Dozortseva, E.G., 2009). Proponents of this view argue that the mind continues to develop well after the body has physically matured, as evidenced by neuroimaging and developmental research.
1/5 1/4
March 2012
Controversies:
While the justice system assumes adulthood is reached by the age of 18 and given the increase in the number of juveniles being tried within adult court, it is imperative to understand whether young people are as criminally culpable for their actions as adults and where differences may lie in the maturity of young people and their adult counterparts. Claire Bryan-Hancock and BJ Casey,
experts on developmental psychobiology.
Abilities associated with adjudicative competence were assessed among 927 adolescents in juvenile detention facilities and community settings... Youths aged 15 and younger performed more poorly than young adults, with a greater proportion manifesting a level of impairment consistent with that of persons found incompetent to stand trial. Adolescents also tended more often than young adults to make choices that reected compliance with authority, as well as inuences of psychosocial immaturity.
Thomas Grisso, legal psychiatrist, and his colleagues on juvenile competence to stand trial.
Oxana Malanceva is a PhD student at Moscow City University, researching xenophobic attitudes and the moral judgments of adolescents.
Ab out the au thor :
Even after rigorous statistical matching procedures, juvenile offenders are punished more severely than their young adult counterparts. Dr. Megan Kurlycheck,
2 1
March 2012
Controversies:
9.
Bibliography
1. Becroft, A. J. (2006). Children and young people in conflict with the law: asking the hard question. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, V.57, 4, 1-37. Bryan-Hancock, C., & Casey, S. (2010). Psychological maturity of at-risk juveniles, young adults and adults: Implications for the justice system. Psychiatry, Psychology And Law, 17(1), 57-69. Burke, A. S. (2011). Under construction: Brain formation, culpability, and the criminal justice system. International Journal Of Law And Psychiatry,34(6), 381385. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2011.10.001 Dozortseva, E. G. (2009). Forensic psychiatric and psychological assessment of minor offender. Clinical and forensic psychology, Moscow: Genesis. Jost, (1993). Childrens legal rights. CQ Researcher, 339, 121-125. Kurlychek, M.C., Johnson, B.D. (2010). Juvenility and Punishment: sentencing juveniles in adult criminal court. Criminology, V.48, 3, 725-758. Mears, D.P., Hay, C., Gertz, M., Mancini, C. (2007). Public opinion and the foundation of the Juvenile Court. Criminology. V.45, 1, 223257.
10. Steinberg, L. (2009). Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice. The Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 5, 47-73. 11. Steinberg, L. (2000). Should juvenile offenders be tried as adults? A developmental perspective on changing legal policies. Temple University // http://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/jcpr/wor kingpapers/wpfiles/Steinberg_briefing.pdf) 12. Vygotsky, L. S. (1929). The Fundamentals of Defectology, V. 2 // http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky /works/1929/defectology/index.htm
2.
3.
4.
5. 6.
7.
For more information visit: www.eaplstudent.com Contact us at: eaplstudent@gmail.com 3/5 3/4
March 2012
If you have questions regarding these guidelines and use of EAPL-S publications, please contact the EAPL-S at eaplstudent@gmail.com