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.

Non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI), defined as deliberate self-directed tissue damage, presents a serious health concern for offender populations. Approximately one-third of offenders report a history of NSSI, and it is the most common reason for mental health treatment within correctional settings. To date, no review exists with a specific focus on NSSI in criminal justice contexts. Therefore, the primary aim of this article is to review research on NSSI within correctional settings. Specifically, we explore the role of risk factors for NSSI. We also examine the functions of NSSI within correctional contexts. In addition, we evaluate the evidence for potential assessment tools and treatments for NSSI. Taken together, our review suggests that risk factors for NSSI must be considered differently in correctional settings, due to the high base rates of these vulnerabilities. Further, although environmental control is a more salient function of NSSI within correctional settings, the primary motive for engaging in this behavior remains emotion regulation. Finally, despite the emergence of several promising treatments for NSSI within correctional settings, larger scale studies are necessary to determine the efficacy of these interventions.

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.