While there is an increasing recognition that developmental differences may exist in legal decision-making, little research has examined this. This study examined the legal judgments of 152 defendants aged 11-17 (73 females, 79 males). Adolescents aged 15 and younger were more likely than older adolescents to confess and waive their right to counsel, and less likely to report that they would appeal their case or discuss disagreements with their attorneys. Also, while adolescents aged 15-17 were more likely to confess, plead guilty, and accept a plea bargain if they perceived that there was strong evidence against them, younger defendants' legal decisions were not predicted by the strength of evidence. Importantly, defendants with poor legal abilities were more likely to waive legal protections, such as the right to counsel and to appeal. Defendants from below-average socioeconomic backgrounds were more likely to waive their interrogation rights, and defendants from ethnic minority groups were less likely to report that they would disclose information to their attorneys. The advice of attorneys, parents, and peers emerged as important predictors of plea decisions. None of the defendants reported that their parents advised them to assert the right to silence during police interrogation.

No abstract

Although there is growing evidence of developmental differences in competency to waive interrogation rights and adjudicative competence, the correlates of adolescents' legal capacities remain unclear. This study examined the relationship of legal capacities to cognitive development, legal learning opportunities, and psychological symptoms. Participants were 152 male and female defendants aged 11-17, who completed Grisso's Instruments for Assessing Understanding and Appreciation of Miranda Rights, the Fitness Interview Test (Revised Edition), the Woodcock-Johnson III Cognitive Assessment Battery, and the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale for Children. Legal capacities relevant to interrogation and adjudication increased with age. These developmental differences were partially mediated or explained by cognitive development. Of the specific cognitive abilities examined (general intellectual ability, verbal ability, reasoning, long-term retrieval, attention, and executive functioning), verbal ability was a particularly strong predictor of performance on competency measures. Also, defendants obtained lower scores on competency measures if they showed evidence of attention deficits or hyperactivity, had spent limited time with their attorneys, and/or were from low socioeconomic backgrounds.

This study provides an analysis of the views of the legal community with respect to competency to stand trial statutes and procedures. Responses from North Carolina judges and defense attorneys reveal significant areas of disagreement or misunderstanding. While many judges believed that defense attorneys misunderstood or misused the competency procedures, the judges uniformly granted the motions. Defense attorneys indicated reasons for requesting competency evaluations that were frequently unrelated to concerns about competency. Hearings to determine competency were often not even held, and if a defendant was found to be incompetent. most judges believed that involuntary commitment to a mental institution should be automatic regardless of perceived dangerousness. The authors argue that these issues demand further attention and resolution to allow the competency laws to accomplish their intended goal without jeopardizing defendants’ rights.

Based on an examination of current methods used to define and assess a defendant's competency to stand trial, the authors propose an assessment and research instrument, referred to as the Interdisciplinary Fitness Interview (IFI). The IFI is a structured interview and rating scale designed to take into account both legal and mental health issues, and calls for an interdisciplinary approach to the assessment of competency. The purpose of the present study was to provide preliminary reliability and validity data on the use of the IFI in one jurisdiction. The results are discussed in terms of policy implications and the development of methods for evaluating competency with brief screening interviews in less restrictive settings.

Theories of procedural justice suggest that individuals who experience respectful and fair legal decisionmaking procedures are more likely to believe in the legitimacy of the law and, in turn, are less likely to reoffend. However, few studies have examined these relationships in youth. To begin to fill this gap in the literature, in the current study, the authors studied 92 youth (67 male, 25 female) on probation regarding their perceptions of procedural justice and legitimacy, and then monitored their offending over the subsequent 6 months. Results indicated that perceptions of procedural justice predicted self-reported offending at 3 months but not at 6 months, and that youths' beliefs about the legitimacy of the law did not mediate this relationship. Furthermore, procedural justice continued to account for unique variance in self-reported offending over and above the predictive power of well-established risk factors for offending (i.e., peer delinquency, substance abuse, psychopathy, and age at first contact with the law). Theoretically, the current study provides evidence that models of procedural justice developed for adults are only partially replicated in a sample of youth; practically, this research suggests that by treating adolescents in a fair and just manner, justice professionals may be able to reduce the likelihood that adolescents will reoffend, at least in the short term.

Currently, there is considerable variability and ambiguity in legal standards pertaining to juveniles' comprehension of Miranda rights and their adjudicative competence. This study investigated rates of impairment under various proposed legal standards. One hundred and fifty-two young defendants aged 11-17 were assessed with Grisso's Miranda Instruments and the Fitness Interview Test-Revised. While over half of defendants aged 15 and under were classified as impaired in adjudicative capacities when adult norms were applied, significantly fewer adolescents were classified as impaired when adolescent norms were applied or a standard of "basic understanding and communication." Also, while over half of defendants aged 15 and under were classified as impaired in their comprehension of Miranda rights when both understanding and appreciation of Miranda rights were required, significantly fewer youth were classified as being impaired when only understanding was required. The implications of these findings are discussed.

Although the domain of law and psychology is a burgeoning and popular field of study, there has never been a concerted effort to evaluate current training models or to develop newer, more effective ones. Forty-eight invited participants attended a national conference held at Villanova Law School to remedy this deficiency. Working groups addressed issues of education and training for the undergraduate level; for doctoral-level programs in law and social science; for forensic clinical training; for joint-degree (JD/PhD-PsyD) programs; for those in practica, internships, and postdoctoral programs; and for continuing education. This article delineates levels and models of training in each of these areas.