NYU Child Study Center Grand Rounds, January 24, 2003
Featured speaker
Laurence Steinberg, Ph.D
Distinguished University Professor of Psychology, Temple University
Director of the John. D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice
What was the main issue or question being addressed?
Dr. Steinberg reviewed the research concerning juveniles' competence to stand trial. He noted that media coverage about juvenile crime is often sensationalized and uninformed. Dr. Steinberg reported on the results of a systematic study of age differences in people's competence to stand trial. Through further study of adjudicative competence of juveniles in the justice system, we may more easily be able to answer the question - Do adolescents differ from adults in their abilities to participate as defendants in trials, and if so, how?
What are the main findings or conclusions?
Adjudicative competence, or competence to stand trial, is associated with the ability to comprehend factual information related to the proceedings, the ability to reason logically as well as the ability to consult counsel. An individual is found incompetent to stand trial if he or she is impaired either in reasoning skills or in comprehension. Results of the study show that about one-third of normal eleven to thirteen-year-olds and one-fifth of fourteen to fifteen-year-olds are lacking in their reasoning and understanding capacities in a way that is comparable to many mentally ill adults who have been found incompetent to stand trial. There are no significant differences between adults and adolescents aged sixteen and older on these abilities.
Measures of abilities relevant for adjudicative competence were developed by another MacCarthur Foundation study. Performance on these competence evaluations is not related to gender, ethnicity, socio-economic status, locale, prior experience in the justice system, or symptoms of emotional and behavioral problems. It is, however, strongly linked to intelligence. Juvenile offenders with below-average IQ and children under age fourteen are at greatest risk for incompetence. Younger juveniles are more likely than older adolescents and adults to confess to police and accept a plea bargain, to comply with authority, to recognize fewer risks, and to perceive them as unlikely. The younger juveniles are also less likely to think about the long-term consequences of their legal decisions.
Are there any practical implications?
Dr. Steinberg made the following recommendations. There are children in the U.S. being tried as adults who may not be competent defendants. Implications for legal practice and policy are: (1) examining the age threshold for transfer to adult court (2) mandating competence evaluations for youths under a certain age before transfer to adult court (3) establishing a lower threshold for competence in juvenile court (4) reversing the waiver of incompetent youth to juvenile court (5) referring juvenile cases concerning incompetent youth to the dependency court.
About the Authors
Summary prepared by Rachel Suberi, a volunteer for AboutOurKids.org, and reviewed by Robin F. Goodman, Ph.D. and Anita Gurian, Ph.D.
