Juveniles' understanding of trial-related information: are they competent defendants?

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Language Skills of Youth Offenders

PURPOSE

This systematic review and meta-analysis estimates the overall language skills of youth offenders involved with the juvenile justice system. Given the importance of this population, identifying avenues through which we can increase the likelihood of successful interventions is a necessary societal effort.

METHOD

Eighteen studies, representing data from 3,304 individuals, contributed 82 effect sizes to the current analytic sample. We used random-effects models to estimate the overall mean effect size metric to address each research question and fit meta-regression models for each moderator analysis.

RESULTS

Results yielded that youth offenders presented with significantly lower language skills than their nonoffending peers (g = -1.26). Furthermore, high proportions of the present meta-analytic sample were classified as youth with moderate (50%) and severe (10%) language disorders. In general, differences in language skills did not vary as a function of age, gender, or language measure type. We did detect significant differences as a function of sample country and type of peer comparison group.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis reports on the significantly compromised language skills of youth offenders. We conclude with a discussion of the findings and consideration of the implications for research and practice.

Passing the Threshold of One Justice System to the Next: Challenges of Emerging Young Adults in Hong Kong's Adult Criminal Justice Process

In many criminal justice systems, there is a clear separation for juvenile and adult defendants. However, those in between, referred to as emerging young adult defendants (ages 18-25 years), are treated as adult defendants despite a growing recognition that emerging adulthood is a distinct period in the life course. The aim of this present study is to investigate the experiences and challenges faced by emerging young adult defendants ( N = 25) in Hong Kong's adult criminal justice process. Through in-depth semistructured interviews, it was found that emerging young adult defendants demonstrated a lack of understanding regarding their rights and the legal procedures, faced stress in being caught up in the criminal justice process, and were susceptible to influence by others, particularly family members, in making legal decisions. Implications and future directions of study are discussed.

Defense attorneys' concerns about the competence of adolescent defendants

Research indicates that a sizable proportion of adolescent defendants have difficulty understanding and participating in legal proceedings against them, and may be incompetent to stand trial. To examine attorneys' experience in defending adolescents with competence-related difficulties, 214 juvenile attorneys were surveyed. Findings indicated that attorneys have doubts about the competence of approximately 10% of adolescent defendants, and that they find these cases particularly challenging to defend. Most attorneys appear to recognize that developmental factors may contribute to adolescents' competence-related difficulties, and believe that the law should accept developmental immaturity as a basis for incompetence findings. In approximately half of the cases in which attorneys had doubts about competence, attorneys did not request a competence evaluation but instead made other efforts to address competence issues, such as by teaching adolescents about legal proceedings and further involving their parents. The implications of these findings are discussed.

Adolescent development and juvenile justice

Although justice system policy and practice cannot, and should not, be dictated solely by studies of adolescent development, the ways in which we respond to juvenile offending should be informed by the lessons of developmental science. This review begins with a brief overview of the history, rationale, and workings of the American juvenile justice system. Following this, I summarize findings from studies of brain, cognitive, and psychosocial development in adolescence that have implications for the treatment of juveniles in the justice system. The utility of developmental science in this context is illustrated by the application of these research findings to three fundamental issues in contemporary justice policy: the criminal culpability of adolescents, adolescents' competence to stand trial, and the impact of punitive sanctions on adolescents' development and behavior. Taken together, the lessons of developmental science offer strong support for the maintenance of a separate juvenile justice system in which adolescents are judged, tried, and sanctioned in developmentally appropriate ways.

Juveniles' knowledge of the court process: results from instruction from an electronic source

Our study first determined what juveniles know about the juvenile court process. Second, it evaluated a DVD designed to be a systematic and simple way to improve this knowledge. A pre- and posttest design was used with two pilot samples and two samples from the population of interest. A sample from a juvenile detention center (n = 118) was the focus of this study. Initial knowledge of the court process was quite low for the detention sample (pretest M = 64.0%, SD = 14.2%). All samples experienced a significant improvement of knowledge after watching the DVD. Youth in the detention sample had a mean improvement from pretest to posttest of 6.4% (SD = 11.9%), with mean scores at posttest being 70.3% (SD = 17.4%). Respondents varied in their performance on different question topics, scoring the lowest on questions related to what happens at juvenile court hearings. The social and demographic variables of age, race, gender, grades in school, number of previous arrests, and the number of times the respondent had been to court were evaluated through regression analysis. Age and race were found to be significantly related to pretest scores, and race was significantly related to improvement scores.

Maltreated children's understanding of and emotional reactions to dependency court involvement

Little is known about the extent to which maltreated children understand what is happening during their participation in court proceedings, despite large numbers of children coming into contact with the legal system as victims of maltreatment. In the present study, maltreated 4- to 15-year-olds were interviewed about their understanding of dependency court on the day of their scheduled court visit. Their feelings about attending their hearings were also assessed, and after their hearing, their understanding of the decisions was examined. Age-related improvements in children's understanding emerged. Also, children who were more knowledgeable about the legal system were less distressed about attending their hearings, as were younger children who had been in the system a longer time. Finally, a majority of children lacked full or accurate understanding of what actually happened during their hearings. Findings have implications for children's participation in legal proceedings and the development of interventions to facilitate children's legal understanding.

Teaching adolescents and adults about adjudicative proceedings: a comparison of pre- and post-teaching scores on the MacCAT-CA

The current study investigated whether teaching was associated with improved legal understanding among adolescents and adults. Participants included 927 youth and 466 young adults, who completed the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-Criminal Adjudication, the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument-Second Version, and the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence. Adolescents aged 13 and younger were less likely than older individuals to improve with teaching. IQ score was positively associated with improvements following teaching, and individuals from ethnic minority groups showed greater improvements following teaching than non-Hispanic Caucasians. The implications of these findings are discussed.

Learning disabilities in juvenile offenders

The article briefly reviews the literature on the association between learning disabilities and conduct problems across correctional communities and clinical settings. It first reviews the literature on the prevalence of learning deficiencies among criminal offenders. It then discusses a number of relevant points from studies of the association between low academic achievement and conduct problems in nonincarcerated population samples. Third, it discusses studies of postrelease academic profiles of juvenile offenders. The article closes with a comment on possible future directions of the research linking reduced levels of academic achievement and delinquency.

Legal issues, rights, and ethics for mental health in juvenile justice

The legal issues, rights, and ethics of working with minors, the mentally ill, and those involved in the justice system are among the most demanding areas for health professionals. To provide appropriate and competent service for youth involved in the juvenile justice system, mental health professionals must be aware of the legal and ethical expectations and constraints. This article reviews the major laws, court decisions, professional standards, and available research on these topics. The recent trends and current questions are discussed in relationship to clinical practice. The rapid pace of change seen in these areas will continue, and it is imperative that mental health professionals contribute to the debate.

The competence-related abilities of adolescent defendants in criminal court

Increasing numbers of youths are being tried in criminal court because of statutory measures that have decreased the use of judicial review as the primary mechanism for transfer. The relative immaturity of adolescents suggests that transferred youths might have impaired competence-related abilities compared to adults. To test this hypothesis, we compared the competence-related abilities and developmental characteristics of a sample of direct-filed 16-17-year-olds charged in criminal court in the state of Florida (Direct File sample) to a sample of 18-24-year-old adults charged in criminal courts (Adult Offender sample) and to a separate sample of 16-17-year-olds charged in juvenile court (Juvenile Court sample). Results indicated that there were few differences between the Direct File youths and Adult Offenders. The differences that were observed suggested that the Direct Filed youths performed slightly better than the Adult Offender group and the Juvenile Court youths charged in juvenile court. These findings suggest that as a group, 16-17-year-old Direct File adolescents do not have significant deficits in competence-related abilities due to age or immaturity.

The mental health paradigm and the MacArthur study: emerging issues challenging the competence of juveniles in delinquency systems

Understanding the factors that impact a juvenile's adjudicative competence in delinquency and criminal proceedings today requires some familiarity with mental illness, mental retardation, and developmental immaturity. Current research and studies shed new light on these factors that juvenile advocates, prosecutors, judges, and policymakers must routinely confront. This article discusses some of the issues involved in competency determinations of juveniles awaiting trial; addressing both the more traditional factors, such as mental illness and mental retardation, and some of the more recent studies and literature identifying developmental immaturity as an emerging basis for challenging the competency of juveniles to stand trial.

Juvenile justice systems routinely presume that adolescents accused of delinquent or criminal misconduct are competent to stand trial. Adults charged with criminal misconduct are also presumed to be competent. Competency requires that citizens accused of criminal misconduct understand the charges against them, have rudimentary understanding of the court process, be able to understand and answer questions posed to them by their counsel, and be able to make decisions about their trial such as whether to testify, and whether to accept or reject plea bargains.

Five year research update (1996-2000): evaluations for competence to stand trial (adjudicative competence)

This article reviews and evaluates publications during 1996-2000 with relevance for assessments of competence to stand trial (also known as adjudicative competence). The review focuses specifically on articles that provide new concepts or data supported by research or case analyses. The studies are reviewed under the following headings: (i) the systemic context of evaluations of adjudicative competence (AC); (ii) conceptual guidelines for AC evaluations; (iii) research on AC assessment methods; (iv) empirical correlates of AC judgments and psycholegal abilities; (v) quality of AC evaluations and reports; (vi) interpretation of AC evaluation data; (vii) issues in AC assessment of special populations (e.g., juveniles, persons with mental retardation, and women); and (viii) treatment to restore competence. Suggestions are offered for further research to advance the quality of clinical evaluations of adjudicative competence.

Pre-adjudicative and adjudicative competence in juveniles and young adults

There are several different types of legal competence, such as competence to waive Miranda rights, competence to confess, and competence to stand trial. Although it can be surmised that many of the underlying factors that influence the different legal competencies are similar, little research has been conducted to empirically test this hypothesis. In the present study, juveniles' and young adults' understanding and appreciation of their Miranda rights and their ability to stand trial were measured. Age, suggestibility, average grades in school, and frequency of previous police involvement were also examined as possible factors that influence both types of legal knowledge. Results indicated that Miranda competence and adjudicative competence are indeed strongly related, especially for juveniles. Also, age and suggestibility were found to predict Miranda competence, whereas suggestibility and average school grades predicted competence to stand trial. Patterns of findings often diverged for juveniles and young adults. Implications for legal policy are discussed.

Juveniles on trial

This article describes common forensic evaluations requested of juvenile court mental health evaluators. There has been a legal shift toward criminalization of juvenile court, with a greater emphasis on rights, abandonment of the rehabilitative model, and greater movement of adolescents into the adult criminal court. A resulting shift has been the redefinition of juvenile court forensic evaluations toward the specificity of adult forensic work. The challenge for evaluators is to refine their knowledge of the forensic standards and bring knowledge of development, assessment, and diagnosis in juveniles and interview techniques appropriate to juveniles to improve the evaluation and forensic reports.

Trust and understanding in the attorney-juvenile relationship

This study investigated whether court-experienced juveniles differ from court-experienced adults in their understanding of the defense counsel role and their trust in attorneys. Court-experienced juveniles and young adults, ages 12 to 20, were compared on measures of trust, attitudes toward authority, understanding about the role of defense counsel, trial-related knowledge, and the Trust in My Lawyer Scale. The findings showed that court-related knowledge is associated with both level of intellectual functioning and age and that court-related misunderstandings are associated with mistrust in attorneys. The findings did not support the assertion that there are significant differences between juveniles and young adults in their trust of their attorneys. Results regarding parental involvement, attorney characteristics, and interaction effects of race and intellectual functioning in relation to trust are also discussed.

Reactions to youth crime: perceptions of accountability and competency

Recent changes in juvenile justice policies have stimulated debate among legal professionals and social scientists. As such, public opinion concerning juvenile offenders is an important and timely topic for empirical study. In the present study, respondents read a scenario about a juvenile who committed a crime, and then decided on a sentence and rated perceptions of the juvenile's accountability and legal competence. Four between-subject factors were manipulated: age of the defendant (11 versus 14 versus 17 years), type of crime (shooting versus arson), crime outcome (victim injured versus died), and time delay between the instigating incident and the crime (immediately versus one day). The type and outcome of the crime were major motivating factors in sentencing decisions and perceptions of legal competence, and, although younger offenders were seen as less accountable and less competent than older offenders, sentence allocation and attitudes towards punishment were not significantly affected by offender age.

Preadolescent adjudicative competence: methodological considerations and recommendations for practice standards

This article examines developmental and legal issues directed toward a downward age extension of forensic evaluation practice standards for preadolescent defendants whose competence is questioned. Existing research and practice standards were developed for cases involving adolescents and adults, but they lack sufficient application to evaluations of young children because of the ways in which legal parameters affect young children. We review practice implications of the legal role of "immaturity" for adjudicative competence, alterations of Dusky in some juvenile courts, and the role of parens patriae in competence hearings held in juvenile court. We examine competence abilities in a developmental framework. Examining practice standards is timely because adjudicative competence in preadolescent defendants has taken on recent significance. The last decade saw changes in the stringency of delinquency statutes, increased emphasis on adversarial approaches to juvenile proceedings, and a de-emphasis on rehabilitation and parens patriae protections. Statutory changes and increased referrals have heightened inquiry into the meaning of preadolescent adjudicative competence.