E THICAL I SSUES IN THE L EGAL S YSTEM

1. ETHICAL ISSUESIN THELEGAL SYSTEM - Unit 3 -

2. The Evolution of Juvenile Court • In the past, juvenile courts emphasized a rehabilitative approach, taking into consideration the best interests of the child • In the 1990s, juvenile court underwent dramatic revisions that increased the number of juveniles transferred to adult court & allowed more punitive sanctions for juvenile offenders - Lower minimum age for transfer to adult court - Increased range of offenses for which transfer is allowed

3. Juvenile Court (cont’d)… • Juvenile court judges hear evidence about the youth’s offense & determine whether he/she should be adjudicated as a delinquent (Psychologists are often called upon to evaluate juvenile offenders to help the court make this determination) • The following issues are taken into consideration when determining whether a juvenile will be transferred to adult court: - Potential dangerousness & risk for re-offending - Maturity level - Amenability to treatment

4. Juvenile Court (cont’d)… In re Gault (1967) – U.S. Supreme Court ruled that juveniles facing criminal charges are entitled to the same due process rights as adults  This landmark ruling provided juveniles with constitutional protection under the law; however, it opened up the door for juveniles to be subjected to the same penalties as adults

5. Ethical Conflicts of Prosecuting Juveniles as Adults: Should juveniles be held to the same standard as adults given their developmental differences??? • Judgment & decision-making abilities are not fully developed • Personality is still developing/not yet stable • Many “age out” of antisocial behaviors by early to mid-20s

6. Do juveniles understand Miranda rights? “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have a right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you…” • Some juveniles may not knowingly, intelligently, & voluntarily waive their Miranda rights • Thomas Grisso (1981) evaluated juvenile understanding of Miranda warnings & found that juveniles < 15 years demonstrated significantly poorer comprehension of the function/purpose of the warning + misunderstood much of the vocabulary & wording

7. Proposed reforms: • Simplify the wording in Miranda warnings to make them easier for juveniles to understand • Appoint an adult to help juveniles understand the meaning of Miranda rights & the implications of waiving them • Require an attorney or juvenile advocate to be present during police interrogations (as a result of their developmental immaturity, juveniles are vulnerable to coercion & providing inaccurate information under pressure)

8. Juvenile Competency to Stand Trial Juveniles are held to the same legal standard for competency to stand trial as adults. Dusky v. United States (1960)  a defendant must have sufficient ability to consult with his lawyer as well as a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings against him • Factual understanding = basic understanding of courtroom proceedings & players (attorneys, judge, jury, etc.) • Rational understanding = understanding of charges, potential consequences if convicted, & constitutional rights • Ability to consult with counsel = communicating effectively w/ attorney & comprehending his/her legal advice

9. Why might a juvenile be found incompetent to stand trial? Reasons for a finding of juvenile incompetence:  • - Mental illness • - Cognitive limitations or mental retardation - Developmental incompetence (immaturity) Research suggests that adolescents are at GREATER RISK (compared to adults) for impairments in trial competence (which is more likely to be related to developmental immaturity than mental disability)

10. Evidence of the problem with measuring juvenile competency against the adult legal standard: Cowden & McKee (1995) examined the forensic competency evaluations of 136 juveniles (ages 9 – 16) referred to evaluators by the courts: Over 50% of 13 – 14 year-olds were judged incompetent 84% of 15 year-olds were found incompetent 72% of 16 year-olds were found incompetent

11. Proposed reforms: • Educate attorneys & forensic evaluators about the developmental factors that may affect juvenile trial competence • Mandate the forensic evaluation of juveniles prior to court proceedings • Assume adjudicative incompetence for adolescents < age 13 (and exclude transfer of this population to adult criminal court)

12. The case of Lionel Tate: • At age 12, killed a 6 year-old girl (allegedly a neighborhood playmate) • Claimed he had been imitating the wrestling moves he had seen on TV • The girl’s injuries included a fractured skull, fractured rib & lacerated liver • Lionel Tate was convicted of 1st degree murder in 2001 (at the age of 14) & sentenced to LWOP Lionel Tate was the youngest person in modern U.S. history to be sentenced to LWOP.

13. Juvenile capital punishment Landmark cases: Thompson v. Oklahoma(1988) – U.S. Supreme Court barred the execution of individuals who were under age 16 at time of offense Roper v. Simmons (2005) – U.S. Supreme Court barred the execution of juveniles under age 18 at time of offense

14. Juvenile Capital Punishment (cont’d)… Prior to Roper v. Simmons (2005), 22 inmates were executed for crimes they committed before the age of 18. As a result of this ruling, the alternative to sentencing juveniles to death is to sentence them to life without parole. What do you think? Should juveniles under the age of 18 be eligible to receive a sentence of life without parole (LWOP)?

15. Children as witnesses: Children who are victims of physical or sexual abuse sometimes are asked to testify against their abusers in court. Interviewers meet with children to gather information about the incident(s).

16. The Negative Effects of Suggestive Interviewing ( - ) Leading questions suggest details that the child did not previously mention ( - ) Children may affirm details presented to them just to be cooperative w/ the adult interviewer ( - ) Biased interviewers who have preconceived notions about the guilt of the alleged abuser may frame questions in a way that will elicit information consistent w/ their beliefs ( - ) Praising children when they provide the answer the interviewer was “looking for” or expressing disappointment when they do not can influence how they answer

17. McMartin Preschool Case (1980s) The McMartin family operated a preschool in Manhattan Beach, California, & were charged with numerous counts of sexual abuse by children in their care. Suggestive questioning techniques were utilized by interviewers – 360 children reported they had been sexually abused. Children who claimed they were abused were positively reinforced & the interviewers were extremely coercive in their questioning. The accused were eventually acquitted on all counts.

18. Proposed reforms: • Encourage use of specially designed interview questionnaires for interviewing children • Ask open-ended questions (e.g., “Tell me what happened”) so a child can recount the incident in his/her own words • Educate interrogators regarding the scientific findings related to interviewing children & the reliability of children’s testimony • If a child must testify in court, utilize closed-circuit television to present his/her testimony to a jury • Provide a child advocate to sit w/ the child during testimony

19. References Goldstein, A. M. (Ed.). (2003). Handbook of Psychology (Vol. 11, Forensic Psychology). Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Greene, E., Heilbrun, K., Fortune, W.H., & Nietzel, M.T. (2006). Psychology and the Legal System. Florence: Wadsworth/Thomson/Cengage Learning. Grisso, T. (1997). The competence of adolescents as trial defendants. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3(1), 3 – 32. Grisso, T., Steinberg, L., Woolard, J., Cauffman, E., Scott, E., Graham, S., Lexcen, F., Reppucci, N.D., Schwartz, R. (2003). Juveniles’ competence to stand trial: A comparison of adolescents’ and adults’ capacities as trial defendants. Law and Human Behavior, 27(4), 333 – 363. Santrock, J. (2008). Life-Span Development (11th Ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.