No abstract

A large proportion of youthful offenders who enter the juvenile justice system have psychiatric disorders and psychosocial risk factors that perpetuate delinquency, and addressing these issues has been a growing concern of juvenile courts nationwide. This study examines the relationship between the clinical information provided through comprehensive forensic assessments and clinicians' recommendations for placement (community setting vs. secure facility) and judges' sentencing decisions. The sample included 248 youth, ranging from 11 to 17 years old, who were adjudicated in the Cook County (Chicago) Juvenile Court. A reliable and valid approach for coding psychosocial variables is also presented as a prototype for future research. Consistent with previous studies, results show that judges are inclined to adopt clinical recommendations and that the material provided by comprehensive clinical evaluations could diminish the effects of offense and delinquency-based factors on dispositions.

Juvenile delinquency is an ongoing social problem particularly among low-income urban youth who are regularly exposed to numerous risk factors. Although much research has been conducted in this area, the most at-risk youth have been largely neglected. This study examines the role of peer deviance in mediating the influence of adult monitoring on male and female adolescents’ delinquent behavior, using multisource, multimethod data with an emphasis on differing impacts across the two genders. Results suggest that the level of peer deviance partially mediates the impact of monitoring on delinquent behavior, even after controlling for previous levels of delinquency. However, girls’ delinquency appear to be more influenced by peers than their perceptions of monitoring. Conversely, boys’ delinquent behavior is associated with daily immediate monitoring, not peer behaviors. These results are discussed in the context of particular issues facing low-income urban African American families.

Juveniles' competency to participate in delinquency proceedings has received increased attention in recent years. Developmental incompetence, whereby juveniles' incompetency is based upon their immaturity, as opposed to a mental disorder or developmental disability, is an evolving and important aspect of this area of law. The following paper reviews theories used to support the notion of developmental incompetence, as well as the extant empirical research on juveniles' competency-related abilities. Using a LexisNexis search, statutory and case laws pertaining to juvenile competency were identified across the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Only six states clearly allow developmental incompetence, whereas 17 have laws that do not include developmental immaturity as an acceptable basis of incompetence in juvenile courts. Developmental incompetence is likely to affect a relatively small proportion of juvenile cases, but has important implications for juvenile forensic practice. Recommendations are offered for forensic practitioners conducting this type of evaluation.

Recent research documenting the magnitude of mental health needs among juveniles has intensified calls for interventions that both address clinical needs and decrease recidivism. This article first examines research supporting the movement toward community mental health treatment for juveniles and argues that effective legal advocacy requires interdisciplinary coordination to identify and address mental health needs. Next, we present one jurisdiction's model for increasing access to community-based mental health services and discuss how attorneys can apply the model to achieve this end.