Adjudicative Competency in a Juvenile Population

Burnett, Darla M. R.; Noblin, Charles D.; Prosser, Vicki L.

doi:10.1177/0093854804265175

Cited by 31 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…have IQs below 70; American Psychiatric Association (DSM-IV-TR), 2000). In fact, because the average IQ for juvenile offenders is consistently at least one standard deviation below the population average (Burnett, Noblin, & Prosser, 2004;Goldstein, Condie, Kalbeitzer, Osman, & Geier, 2003;Viljoen, Klaver, & Roesch, 2005), even more are probably in the borderline range of intellectual disability (i.e. IQs ranging from 71 to 84; DSM-IV-TR, 2000).…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Jurors' perceptions of juvenile defendants: the influence of intellectual disability, abuse history, and confession evidence

Najdowski¹,

Bottoms

Vargas³

2009

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding jurors' perceptions of juvenile defendants has become increasingly important as more and more juvenile cases are being tried in adult criminal court rather than family or juvenile court. Intellectual disability and child maltreatment are overrepresented among juvenile delinquents, and juveniles (particularly disabled juveniles) are at heightened risk for falsely confessing to crimes. In two mock trial experiments, we examined the effects of disability, abuse history, and confession evidence on jurors' perceptions of a juvenile defendant across several different crime scenarios. Abused juveniles were treated more leniently than nonabused juveniles only when the juvenile's crime was motivated by self-defense against the abuser. Jurors used disability as a mitigating factor, making more lenient judgments for a disabled than a nondisabled juvenile. Jurors also completely discounted a coerced confession for a disabled juvenile, but not for a nondisabled juvenile. In fact, compared with when it was portrayed as voluntary, jurors generally discounted a juvenile's coerced confession. Implications for public policy and directions for future research are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Jurors' perceptions of juvenile defendants: the influence of intellectual disability, abuse history, and confession evidence

Najdowski¹,

Bottoms

Vargas³

2009

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While research has indicated that adolescents 15 and under show high rates of deficits in the legal capacities relevant to adjudication (Burnett, Noblin, & Prosser, 2004;Grisso et al, 2003;Peterson-Badali & Abramovitch, 1992;Peterson-Badali & Abramovitch, 1993;Redlich et al, 2003;Savitsky & Karras, 1984), research has not yet examined the possible rates of impairments under these alternative legal standards.…”

Section: Adjudicative Competencementioning

confidence: 99%

Adjudicative competence and comprehension of Miranda rights in adolescent defendants: a comparison of legal standards

Viljoen

Zapf

Roesch

2007

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…Research on psychosocial maturity, temperament, and cognition has shown that differences in developmental trajectories and pathways are precursors of antisocial behavior, delinquency, and other problem behaviors (Lahey et al, 2003;Rutter et al, 1998;Steinberg and Cauffman, 1996). Development is not only important in explaining how often and perhaps why children will break the law, but also their behavior in interactions with legal actors (Burnett et al, 2004;Grisso et al, 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%