Juvenile Competency to Stand Trial and the Adolescent Brain Functioning

Juvenile Competency to Stand Trial and the Adolescent Brain Functioning

Introduction

Over the past decade an increasing number of juvenile offenders have been moved to the American (adult) criminal court system (Snyder & Sickmund, 1999). While it is difficult to assess the exact number of transferred children and adolescents, the best available estimates suggest around 200,000 cases annually (American Bar Association Criminal Justice Section, 2001). Unfortunately, research indicates poorer outcomes (i.e., higher re-arrest rates) for those moved to criminal court compared to those who remain in juvenile court (MacArthur Foundation Research Network, 2006). This has led to questions about juveniles' competency to participate in the trial process in an adult setting. How much do competence-related abilities depend on developmental maturity in cognitive, social, and underlying neurological domains? An appreciation of the extent to which juvenile offenders demonstrate competence-related abilities is crucial in order to engage in a criminal justice process free from coercion and to design policies for the adjudication of juveniles appropriate to their developmental level (Melton, Petrila, Poythress, & Slobogin, 1997).

Increasingly, the field of criminology has also recognized the importance of developmental perspectives for understanding the etiology of crime and delinquency. Key theorists (e.g., Moffitt, 1993) have proposed explanations for life-course-persistent offending which implicate neuropsychological impairments in executive and verbal functions. However, relatively few studies have included neuropsychological assessments, and brain imaging technology has yet to be incorporated into these theory-testing endeavors. Do juvenile offenders actually have neurological and psychosocial deficits compared to juvenile non-offenders? If so, do these deficits persist over time or simply represent delayed rates of maturation? The answer to these questions would better inform prevention and intervention efforts designed to mitigate involvement in crime and associated risk behaviors which are detrimental to health and/or social well-being (e.g., drinking, reckless driving, etc.).

Several bodies of literature are relevant to these issues, covering topics associated with adjudicative competency; neuropsychological and neuroimaging research on adolescent brain development; and its relationships with psychopathology, antisocial behavior, and substance use. Research findings suggest that competency is contingent on certain cognitive skills which are tied to brain functions that mature over the developmental course from childhood through adolescence, into early adulthood. Unfortunately, the existing neuropsychological literature is not yet well integrated into discussions about juvenile adjudicative competency.

Juvenile adjudicative competency

In the United States, to be considered competent to stand trial in criminal court, a defendant must be capable of understanding the charges against him or her, be able to consult with his/her attorney, and understand and participate in legal proceedings (Dusky v. United States, 1960). More narrow criteria for proceeding with trial are utilized by other countries such as England (Mackay, 2007) and Canada (O'Shaughnessy, 2007).

When any of these competence criteria are applied to juveniles, developmental immaturity becomes a complicating factor. Cognitive and psychosocial skills are still developing throughout adolescence. Consequently, many juveniles show broad deficits in understanding and decision-making (Grisso et al., 2003; Viljoen & Roesch, 2005). Along with normal developmental immaturity, many disorders may interfere ...