1 / 83

Juveniles in the Legal System

Juveniles in the Legal System. Professor Ronald Roesch Psyc 268 11-1. Historical Timeline. YOA moved to a better balance between rights and intervention. More focus on legal procedures and due process. YOA had four guiding principles:

oya
Télécharger la présentation

Juveniles in the Legal System

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Juveniles in the Legal System Professor Ronald Roesch Psyc 268 11-1

  2. Historical Timeline YOA moved to a better balance between rights and intervention. More focus on legal procedures and due process. YOA had four guiding principles: 1. Young people must assume responsibility for their illegal behaviour; 2. Society has a right to be protected from illegal behaviour; 3. Youths are entitled to traditional legal rights and some additional protections; 4. Young people, because they are not fully grown or mature, have special needs and should not be held accountable in the same manner or to the same extent as adults.

  3. YCJA Focus Prevention: The need to address the root causes of crime, support youth, encourage community efforts to reduce crime, promote crime prevention and introduce effective alternatives to the formal youth justice system. Meaningful consequences for youth crime: The need for specific measures for violent and repeat offenders, to help young offenders understand the impact of their actions and allow them to make good on the harm done to the victim and community. Intensified rehabilitation, especially for violent young offenders: The need for measures for violent and repeat young offenders that are more firm, more controlling, and more effective in providing treatment and support for rehabilitation and reintegration.

  4. Pre/post comparisons: YOA and YCJA The Act has been successful in significantly reducing rates of incarceration among youths, especially for those who have committed less serious offences. Increase in the number of youths being sentenced to supervision in the community, as well as deferred custody orders, in which a young person can avoid incarceration by showing good behaviour. Greater emphasis on extrajudicial measures, such as referral to restorative justice agencies, where the offender must face his/her victim and the victim's family. For some, these trends are positive, as they move away from an approach to youth justice in which imprisonment is viewed as an effective means of addressing youth delinquency, and towards one which embraces alternative forms of dealing with youths in order to teach responsibility and respect for others.  

  5. YCJA covers youth 12-18. Youth under 12 cannot be charged with an offence. In U.S., some states allow children as young as 8 to be charged. Nevada and a few other states automatically raise any child to adult court if charged with murder.

  6. Adult sentence for youth YCJA ended transfers of youth to adult court, but can impose adult sentence. An adult sentence shall be imposed on a young person who is found guilty of an indictable offence for which an adult is liable to imprisonment for a term of more than two years in the following cases: • in the case of a presumptive offence (first and second-degree murder, manslaughter, attempted murder, and aggravated sexual assault) if the youth justice court makes an order. A presumptive offence may mean that the young person, over the age of 14, will receive an adult sentence if found guilty. (b) in any other case, if the youth justice court makes an order under subsection 64(5) or paragraph 72(1)(b) in relation to an offence committed after the young person attained the age of 14 years. The YCJA also creates a "serious violent offence" where a young person causes or attempts to cause serious bodily harm. A serious violent offence may become a presumptive offence if the young person has committed two prior serious violent offences.

  7. Supreme Court strikes down key component of Harper’s Tough on Crime Policy By a 5-4 margin, the deeply divided Court struck down provisions of the YCJA that presume youths who have committed serious crimes will be treated as adults unless they can convince a judge otherwise. The onus on the accused is unconstitutional because it violates the Charter principle of fundamental justice and is also an affront to a century-old system that holds young people "differently accountable" for their crimes, Justice Rosalie Abella wrote for the majority. "Young people are entitled to a presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness or culpability from the fact that because of their age, they have heightened vulnerability, less maturity and a reduced capacity for moral judgment," she wrote. "That is why there is a separate legal and sentencing regime for them."

  8. Is Youth Crime Increasing? Police Statistics –Overall Crime • Includes rate of youth charged & youth handled informally • Peak in 1991 • Since decreased

  9. Is Youth Crime Increasing? Police Statistics –Youth Violence • Increase in late 80s • Some argued this was due to increased reporting (Frank, 1992) • Others argue it could be a real increase (Corrado & Markwart, 2002) • Relatively stable for last 10 years

  10. What About Adult Crime? Police Statistics –Adult Crime • Comparable to youth crime trends • Peaked in early 1990s • Has since decreased

  11. Does this Mean that Youth Crime is Not a Problem? • “Media wave” not a “crime wave” (Bell, 2007) • However, youth crime is a serious problem • Crime is so common it is “normative” (Moffitt, 2003) • Rates of crime are highest among adolescents & young adults (age-crime curve)

  12. Age and Crime

  13. Type of Offense as Juvenile as Predictor of Adult Felony Arrests

  14. Adults Convicted of Violent Felony: % with Juvenile Record

  15. Moffitt Study Longitudinal study led by Terrie Moffitt. Identified two types of young offenders: Life-course persistent offenders Adolescent-limited offenders

  16. Life-Course Persistent Offenders These offenders have conduct problems that begin in early childhood. 10% of all children. Childhood predictors: Life-course-persistent path is differentially predicted by undercontrolled temperament and delayed motor development by age three, low verbal ability, attention deficit and hyperactivity problems, and neuropsychological impairments. They may engage in bullying behavior in elementary school and have difficulties in interpersonal peer relations. These children are at higher risk for later delinquent and adult criminal behavior.

  17. Adolescent-limited offenders • Higher than LCP offenders. About 26%. • Do not begin offending until their teen years, and they typically do not have the early childhood antisocial and behavioral problems seen in life-course persistent offenders. • Moffitt and Caspi consider delinquent behavior to be normative for this group, as a way of establishing autonomy from parents and to gain acceptance from peers. • Indeed, adolescent-limited offenders are heavily influenced by peers when engaging in delinquent behavior. • Adolescent-limited offending is by far the most common type of offending but although smaller in number, the life-course-persistent offenders are more persistent and pathological.

  18. Kids are Different! • Many juveniles have impaired judgment relative to adults in the areas of: • responses to peer and parental pressure • time perspective (focus on short term consequences) • attitudes toward risk • reactions to stress • weigh more strongly the possible benefits of a decision and to discount possible risks

  19. Adolescent Behavior and Decision Making • Reasoning and judgment. • Several factors influence this: peer influence, time perspective (tendency to focus on short-term and not long-term consequences), risk taking. • These distinguish youth from adults. Cognitive capacities differ substantially by age—younger teens less capable than older teens. • Antisocial behavioras a part of adolescence. • Self-report studies indicate that most teenage males engage in some criminal conduct. • For most, they don’t persist. • Some developmental theorists argue that delinquency is a normal part of adolescence and that desistance is a predictable part of the maturation process.

  20. Adolescence, Learning, & Mistakes • Franklin Zimring: Adolescence is mistake prone by design…one important hallmark of a successful adolescence is survival to adulthood, preferably with the individual’s life chances intact. • Punitive policies, particularly raising to adult court or giving adult sentences, reduce those life chances. • Children are by definition immature. Zimring asks “Why would any legal system wish to treat offenses that were partly the result of immaturity as if the immaturity that co-occurs with childhood and adolescence were wholly the young person’s fault?”

  21. Mental Disorder • Rate of mental disorders is higher among youth in juvenile system than peers in general population. • Suicide threats and actual suicide attempts are not uncommon. • Many juvenile offenders have experienced physical & sexual abuse, parental neglect.

  22. Adolescent Mental Health Research by Linda Teplin • Cook County, IL study of 1829 youth in detention: • 1 or more psychiatric disorders: 2/3 males and ¾ females • Substance abuse: about half of sample • Major depression: about 1/5 • Psychotic disorder rare, but 21% of males and 31% of females have an anxiety disorder • ADHD in 16.6% of males and 21.5% of females

  23. Does Treating Mental Illness Decrease Offending? • Kids diverted to mental health services had lower offending rates • Reduced arrests by 0.68 arrests per participant over one year Cuellar et al. (2006)

  24. The Developing Brain • The brain's center of reasoning and problem solving is among the last to mature. National Institute of Mental Health and UCLA Study • Sample: 4 – 21 years old • MRI of normal brain development • "higher-order" brain centers do not fully develop until young adulthood. • Last areas of the brain to develop: frontal lobes (specifically the pre-frontal cortex) which govern decision-making, judgment, and impulse control.

  25. Red indicates more gray matter, blue less gray matter. • Gray matter wanes in a back-to-front wave as the brain matures and neural connections are pruned. • Areas performing more basic functions mature earlier; areas for higher order functions mature later. • The prefrontal cortex, which handles reasoning and other "executive" functions, emerged late in evolution and is among the last to mature.

  26. Inability to foresee consequences • Essential part of meaningful decision making: Ability to foresee the consequences of a decision. • Defendants must be able to: • imagine hypothetical situations - envision conditions that do not currently exist or have never experienced, but which may result based on the choices they make. • evaluate potential outcomes, comparing them with what they know or imagine to be more or less desirable or painful in life. • Several studies have found: • Adolescents, especially younger ones, are less capable of imagining risky consequences of decisions • More likely to consider a constricted number and range of consequences. • Less likely than older adolescents to think "strategically" about pleading decisions. • Peterson-Badali, M., & Abramovitch, R. (1993). Grade related changes in young people's reasoning about plea decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 537-552.

  27. Adolescent Cognitive Abilities • Stress and fear greatly impact adolescent cognition: • Compared to non-stressful situations, when adolescents are in stressful situations, they will often not use the highest level of cognitive reasoning. • Beyer, M. (2000). Immaturity, culpability & competency in juveniles: A study of 17 cases. Criminal Justice, 27. • Youth have less experience, including interpersonal experience, to draw on than adults • On average they have less capacity to respond and react in new and stressful situations. • Adolescents generally process information less effectively than adults: • Instead exhibit “either-or” thinking (particularly when under stress). • Adolescents will typically perceive only one option when adults in similar situations would see multiple possibilities.

  28. Roper v. Simmons: Juvenile Death Penalty US Supreme Court: This case requires us to address, for the second time in a decade and a half, whether it is permissible under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States to execute a juvenile offender who was older than 15 but younger than 18 when he committed a capital crime. • Christopher Simmons was 17 when he murdered a woman whose house he had broken into. Simmons waived his Miranda rights and confessed to crime. Due to his age, he was automatically raised to adult court.

  29. Closing Arguments • Defense counsel reminded the jurors that juveniles of Simmons’ age cannot drink, serve on juries, or even see certain movies, because the legislatures have wisely decided that individuals of a certain age aren’t responsible enough. • Defense counsel argued that Simmons’ age should make a huge difference to [the jurors] in deciding just exactly what sort of punishment to make.. • The jury recommended and the judge agreed that Simmons should be sentenced to death.

  30. Roper v. Simmons • The relevance of youth as a mitigating factor derives from the fact that the signature qualities of youth are transient; as individuals mature, the impetuousness and recklessness that may dominate in younger years can subside. • Citing Thompson, the likelihood that the teen-age offender has made the kind of cost-benefit analysis that attaches any weight to the possibility of execution is so remote as to be virtually nonexistent. • The relevance of youth as a mitigating factor derives from the fact that the signature qualities of youth are transient; as individuals mature, the impetuousness and recklessness that may dominate in younger years can subside. • Conclusion: These differences render suspect any conclusion that a juvenile falls among the worst offenders. The susceptibility of juveniles to immature and irresponsible behavior means their irresponsible conduct is not as morally reprehensible as that of an adult.

  31. Implications While the Simpson decision applies only to the death penalty, the Supreme Court’s reasoning, and reliance on the psychological research, can be extended to other juvenile justice issues, such as waiver to adult court, waiver of arrest rights, or imposing adult sentences. It also has treatment implications.

  32. Good News, Bad News • The Good News is that we do have the assessment tools to identify high risk children and youth, and that there are programs that are effective in helping children and youth and preventing crime • Evidence that intervention, especially early intervention, can reduce serious and violent offending. • The Bad News is that we miss too many kids because of inadequate assessment; and also the best interventions are expensive and the effects are often not realized for a long time. • Programs that take place before involvement in justice system are needed. Focus on families, schools, community. • Also need to identify high versus low risk children and youth, and distribute resources more efficiently.

  33. Grisso on Youth Evaluations Grisso (2003) identified four questions to address in forensic evaluations of youth who have been convicted of an offense: 1. What are the youth’s important characteristics (e.g., personality, family factors, mental or intellectual problems, delinquency history)? 2. What needs to change (e.g., what factors that have contributed to delinquency will need to be modified to reduce the likelihood of recidivism)? 3. What modes of intervention could be applied toward the rehabilitation objective? 4.What is the likelihood of change, given the relevant interventions?

  34. Challenges in Assessing Adolescents’ Violence Risk (Viljoen et al., in press) • Period of enormous developmental change – like assessing a “moving target” • Many youth do not reoffend • Limited information about youth available (adults have a longer history)

  35. The National Academy of Sciences Report of the Panel on Juvenile Crime: Prevention, Treatment, and Control (2001). With respect to risk prediction, the Panel commented, “Public policy on juvenile crime, particularly the trend toward more punitive sanctions, appears to have been influenced in part by predictions of future crime rates—predictions that have proven notoriously inaccurate” (p. ES-6). “Because of the inaccuracies inherent in long-range predictions of behavior, public policy should not be based on the assumption that any specific forecast will be true. The periods over which crime forecasts are made should be as short as possible and the forecasts should be reviewed frequently” (p. ES-6).

  36. Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) (Borum, Bartel, & Forth, 2003) • Structured professional judgment tool • 24 risk factors derived from empirical research • 6 protective factors • Items are coded based on interview and file/collateral information

  37. SAVRY Overview 30-item structured guide for evaluating risk for violence in adolescents aged 12-18. Each risk item is given a rating of low, medium, or high risk based on scoring criteria contained in the manual. Four areas covered: A. Historical Risk Factors B. Social/Contextual Risk Factors C. Individual/Clinical Risk Factors D. Protective Factors Borum, R., Bartel, P., & Forth, A. (2002). Manual for the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY). Tampa, FL: University of South Florida.

  38. Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth • History of violence • Early initiation of violence • History of suicide/self-harm Historical SocialContextual • Peer delinquency • Poor parental management Violence Risk • Risk taking • Attention deficits/ hyperactivity Individual Protective • Prosocial involvement • Strong attachments

  39. A. Historical Risk Factors History of violence History of non-violent offending Early initiation of violence Past supervision/intervention failures History of self-harm or suicide attempts Exposure to violence in the home History of abuse Parental criminality Early caregiver disruption Poor school achievement

  40. B. Social/Contextual Risk Factors Peer delinquency Peer rejection Stress and coping Poor parental management Lack of personal/Social support Community disorganization

  41. C. Individual/Clinical Risk Factors Negative attitudes Risk taking/Impulsivity Substance abuse difficulties Anger management problems Attention deficit/hyperactivity problems Poor compliance Low interest/commitment to school

  42. D. Protective Factors Prosocial peer/activity involvement Strong social support Strong attachment and bonds Positive attitude toward intervention and authority Strong commitment to school

  43. Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (Catchpole & Gretton, 2003) • Youth classified as high risk are more likely to reoffend N = 74 violent young offenders

  44. Interventions with Youth 1. Most youth do not engage in serious offending; rather it is a small group of chronic offenders who should be the primary focus of treatment programs. 2. Serious offending behavior is learned over time and reflects a confluence of individual and contextual risk factors that are affected by life events. 3. Assessment of risk factors must address sources of dynamic risk that can be changed while simultaneously building on strengths (i.e., risk-focused, strengths-based). 4. Treatment using evidence-based programs and principles is effective. 5. There are subgroups of offenders with unique risk profiles who require focused interventions. Those with mental health needs would be included in this group.

  45. What do we know? • Many programs are effective in helping children and youth and reducing delinquent behavior. • It is never too early but also never too late to intervene. • Interventions should: • start as early as possible • be comprehensive and long-term • attempt to interrupt developmental pathways before serious, chronic delinquency emerges. • Interventionsshould: • focus on family, school, peer, and neighborhood factors, not just the individual alone.

  46. Prevention Types • Primary preventioninterventions take place before a problem is developed and are directed at a population in general rather than specific individuals. • Secondary prevention programs are directed at specific groups, but the intervention takes place early before significant problems have developed. • Tertiary prevention takes place long after problems have developed, and are usually quite costly as they often involve institutional care and intensive case management. Also, serious criminal behavior, including violence, has already occurred.

  47. Early Intervention Should begin as early as possible, even at prenatal stage: prevent FASD, smoking during pregnancy as risk factors. Streissguth 1996 study of 400 FASD individuals followed into adulthood: • 60% had been suspended, expelled, or dropped out of school • 60% had been charged or convicted of a crime • 50% of the sample had been confined–either as an inpatient for mental health or substance abuse treatment or incarcerated for committing a crime • 50% exhibited inappropriate sexual behavior • 30% had alcohol and/or drug problems.

  48. Later Assessment & Intervention • Key is to identify those at high risk and put resources into programs for them and, for the most part, leave the other kids alone. • Programs most likely to be effective are those that take a multi-level approach.

  49. Primary Prevention • Alcohol and smoking awareness program for expectant mothers. • Skills and competency building programs. Example: Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies-Paths. School curriculum targeting emotional competence, self-control, problem-solving. Risk factors: aggressive behavior, conduct problems, anxiety and depression. • Training programs for parents. Example: Iowa Strengthening Families Program; sessions designed to improve parenting skills and family communication. Risk factors: family conflict, poor parenting skills. • Behavior management programs. Ex.: Seattle Social Development Project; enhance elementary school students’ bonds with school and their families. Target prosocial behavior, avoidance of drugs. Risk factor: poor school performance, poor parenting skills. • Bullying prevention programs.Programs by Dan Olweus, Anna Baldry. Risk factors: Bully and bully victim both risk factors. • Early childhood education programs. Ex: Perry Preschool, Head Start. Note that these do not necessarily have delinquency prevention as primary goal. Risk factors: low self-esteem, poor school performance.

More Related