Juvenile Competency to Stand Trial
The Supreme Court has long considered competency to be a right of the criminal defendant in court. In many areas, insanity has been a criminal defense with a significant history. However, in the early part of this century, adult protections, including the competency requirement and common defenses like insanity, were not added into the juvenile court system. Because juvenile courts were established to protect juveniles from the rigors of adult court and punishments in adult facilities, states focused on achieving proceedings more compatible with juveniles' needs.
Over the last decade, many state legislatures have offered better options and procedures for handling delinquent juveniles. Many states have also extended their juvenile codes for not only the welfare of the child, but for the safety of the community and the protection of the rights of the victim(s). Moreover, many states have also amended their transfer qualifications so that only the most serious of crimes are tried in adult court. As a result, the competency requirement and the insanity defense have gained renewed importance.
The issue of juvenile competency began to form in the early 1990's from a dramatic increase in violent offenses by juveniles. A juvenile offender can be technically classified as "incompetent" for a number of reasons: developmental immaturity, mental illness, too young, or in the state of emotional shock. A criminal defendant MUST be capable of meaningful participation in his defense and must be able to make decisions, such as exercising or waiving important rights. Further, the criminal defendant must posses the ability to understand the charges, the trial process, other participants' rol...
... middle of paper ...
...ked at. For example, in Georgia, a twelve year old boy was charged with aggravated sodomy of two younger children. The defense attorney argued that the youth was diagnosed with mental retardation, and therefore could not give a consistent account of the event, and it impaired counsel from obtaining information critical to the boy's defense. The judge denied the motion explaining that Georgia did not have laws protecting incompetent juveniles from being tried in delinquency proceedings.
Not only do courts recognize incomplete development and incompetence, but most states' laws recognize lack of development. For example, the law does not believe that kids under the age of sixteen are capable of deciding about their medical treatments, entering binding contracts, or operating automobiles. How could the law then turn around and prosecute someone in this category?
The article titled “ Juvenile Justice from Both Sides of the Bench”, published by PBS, and written by Janet Tobias and Michael Martin informs readers on numerous judges’ opinions on the juveniles being tried as adults. Judge Thomas Edwards believed that juveniles should not be tried as adults because they are still not mature enough to see the consequences of their actions and have a chance to minimize this behavior through rehabilitation programs. Judge LaDoris Cordell argues that although we shouldn’t give up on juveniles and instead help them be a part of society, however, she believes that some sophisticated teens that create horrible crimes should be tried as adults. Bridgett Jones claims that teens think differently than adults and still
The focus of the juvenile justice system is to rehabilitate juvenile offenders, rather than to imprison and punish like the systems adult counterpart. According to Caldwell (1961) the juvenile justice system is based on the principle that youth are developmentally and fundamentally different from adults. This has lead to the development of a separate justice system for juveniles that was initially designed to assist troubled juveniles providing them with protection, treatment, and guidance. When performing as it is designed and up to the initial intentions, the juvenile court balances rehabilitation (treatment) of the offender with suitable sanctions when necessary such as incarceration. According to Mack (1909) the focus of the juvenile justice system has shifted from “how can we help the child”, “why did the child commit the crime” to “was the crime committed”. According to Griffin (2008) in some cases juveniles may be required to be “transferred” to adult court. The prerequisites for transfer to adult court are the duty to protect the public from violent youths, serious crime, and the lack of rehabilitation chance from the juvenile court. According to Flesch (2004) many jurisdictions handle the issue of serious juvenile crime by charging juveniles as adults. Charging a juvenile as an adult is done by a method which is called waiver to adult court. This waiver allows adult criminal court to have the power to exercise jurisdiction over juveniles and handle the juvenile’s case as an adult’s case would be tried. According to Flesch (2004) a juvenile is both tried and if convicted of the crime the juvenile will be sentenced as an adult when his or her case is waived from the juvenile court. Waiver to adult court initially was viewe...
When our thoughts turn to the criminal justice system it is only a natural instinct to assume everyone associated with policing, courts, and corrections will have to deal with juveniles sometime in their career. Young people in today’s society can be so easily influenced by social situations, peer pressure, and family members. The courts in the United States are faced with difficult decisions on a daily basis. Sentencing juveniles to adult facilities for their crimes is becoming a common trend in the justice system today; however it is not a deterrent whatsoever. “The current policies of juvenile bind over to adult criminal court and severe sentencing have been unsuccessful
Mental health treatment among juvenile is a subject that has been ignored by society for far too long. It has always been one of those intricate issues that lead to the argument of whether juveniles should receive proper treatment or imprisoned like any other criminals, and often trialed as adults. Many times, young people are often deprived of proper help (Rosenberg) However, we often overlook the fact that while they are criminals, they are still young, and fact or not, it is a matter of compassion that must be played from our side to help these youth overcome their harsh reality. As such, we do however see signs of sympathy shown towards juvenile. Juvenile health courts give help to youth to youth who have serious mental illness (Rosenberg). It is often asked in general, would mental health treatment cure juvenile criminals? In my opinion, when you look at the background of these young criminals, it is frequently initiated from negligence and feelings of betrayal (Browne and Lynch), of course leading to mental disorder. However, further zooming into their background, it is always proper treatment that saves them from their unfortunate circumstances. Research shows that giving juvenile criminals mental health treatment did not only reduce re-arrests but also further improve their ways of living among the society.
...ng experts to identify mental health symptoms such as delusions, hallucinations, and identifying if any instances of malingering are present. Evaluating a defendant is essential in understanding whether or not they are capable of following legal proceedings. If an individual is in fact found incompetent, attempts to restore competency are performed through treatments with medication or mental training about legal information that is vital for them to know in their case. It is imperative to acknowledge competency to stand trial cases in the legal system to not only ensure fairness in the courtroom, but offer mentally ill defendants an opportunity to have a lawful trial depending on their psychological state.
Shawn was 16 in 1998 when he violently stabbed his father in his sleep, was tried as a juvenile because of his pre-existing parasomnia, and was sentenced to juvenile hall until his 19th birthday. Jose, 15 in 1998, engaged in a deadly brawl with four other teenagers, tried as a juvenile and sentenced to 208 days in juvenile hall. Marquese, 17, considered a “frequent flyer” of the juvenile system, reoffended on parole by stealing a car and breaking and entering, was tried as a juvenile and paroled in 2001. Manny, 17 in 1999 attacked a family in his neighborhood with a baseball bat alongside two other gang members. One of the victims was six months pregnant. He was tried as an adult and sentenced to nine years in prison. Jordan Brown, now 12, is currently awaiting trial for the murder of his father’s pregnant girlfriend, where he will be tried as an adult for both the murder of the woman and the fetus. What were the factors that decided Manny and Jordan’s case would be tried as adults? Manny and Jordan’s case went to adult court, while other children and teenagers are tried and sentenced in the juvenile system. The court systems have criteria for trying children as adults, taking into account different factors within the crimes themselves. How exactly does th...
The Supreme Court of the United States interpretation of the Sixth and a Fourteenth amendment is that defendants, who do not fit the legal description of competence to stand trial, should not be tried while they are in such a condition. Competency to stand trial refers to a person being able to participate as well as assist in his or her own defense. It has to be determined inline with the legal definition given by the laws before an individual can stand trial. The Supreme Court set a specific standard when determining competency to stand trial. The specific standard known as The Dusky Standards, which states that, a person must have sufficient ability to communicate with his or her attorney with a reasonable and rational understanding of the proceedings against him or her. These standards came to be after a mentally ill man named Milton Dusky kidnapped a fifteen year old girl named Alison McQuery, and took her over state lines with two boys she knew which ultimately led to her rape by the two boys (Dusky,1960). There are considerations that are made with respect to the statutes governing a Jurisdiction, and the criteria under law for the particular case. The adjudicative competence of the defendant has to be exhausted in the quest seeking to determine whether he or she is competent to stand trial. This refers not only to the defendant’s ability to take part in the procedures of the courtroom, but also for the other related procedures during the prosecution. All data must be taken into account when determining if someone is competent to stand trial. This data is not from the defendant in question, but rather from other parties who will help give the court an insight into him or her. They include reports from psychiatrists and othe...
Every state allows children under sixteen to be tried as adults, but new research indicates that many cannot understand their situations well enough to aid their defense. A study by the private MacArthur Foundation says that many children under sixteen have as much difficulty grasping the legal proceedings as adults who had been ruled incompetent to go to court. The study, by John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice, looked at more than 1,400 people between the ages of 11 and 24 in Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Northern and Eastern Virginia, and Northern Florida. They were given an intelligence test and asked to respond to several hypothetical legal situations, such as whether to confess to a police officer. The results found that one-third of those 11 to 13 and one-fifth of those 14 or 15 could not understand the proceedings or help lawyers defend them. The study recommends that states reconsider the minimum age for juveniles to be tried as adults or to develop a system for evaluating young defendants' competence (Salant 2003).
Pagnanelli, E. (2007). CHILDREN AS ADULTS: THE TRANSFER OF JUVENILES TO ADULT COURTS AND THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF ROPER V. SIMMONS. The American Criminal Law Review, 44(1), 175-194. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/230359891?accountid=12610
There are numerous critics of the juvenile justice system, and while most of their denunciations remain the same as those of the justice system at large, an ample portion of their criticisms revolve around the claim that incarcerating young people not only doesn’t work in deterring or rehabilitating them, but makes them worse and leads to adult misconduct. A report noted that youth sent to juvenile prison were 37 times more likely to be arrested as adults (Szalavitz, 2009). Another major problem some cite with the juvenile justice system is that most delinquent offends have some form of mental illness, and that while studies have shown that mental health treatment would be a better alternative, they are simply ignored or incarcerated (Ramirez, 2008), completely contradictory to the core values of the juvenile justice system which stresses rehabilitation and restitution above all else.
Much controversy exists on the question of whether a juvenile criminal should be punished to the same extent as an adult. Those who commit capitol crimes, including adolescents, should be penalized according to the law. Age should not be a factor in the case of serious crimes. Many people claim that the child did not know any better, or that he was brought up with the conception that this behavior is acceptable. Although there is some truth to these allegations, the reality of this social issue is far more complex. Therefore we ask the question, "Should childhood offenders of capitols crimes be treated as adults?"
Since the establishment of the first juvenile court in Chicago Illinois for over 100 years (Grisso, 199,813) ago, psychologists have continued to show a strong presence in juvenile proceedings and assist the juvenile justice system, as well as young people involved in it. a special court and the justice system for minors, partly in response to the recognition that adolescents, while clearly shows greater cognitive, emotional and behavioral capacities were established than their younger counterparts, do not have many of the skills that adults and relevant to the legal decision making and criminal responsibility (Otto and Borum, 2004) demonstrators. As a result, the juvenile court was to consider the criminal behavior of minors in context of development, with a greater emphasis on rehabilitation and decreased attention on the punishment (Zimring, 2000). Since the juvenile court was to focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment, the dramatic changes in the landscape of juvenile justice in 1966 and 1967, changing forever the denial of constitutional guarantees for minors. In its decisions in Kent v. United States (1966) and In re Gault (1967), the Supreme Court of the United States asked if the ideal rehabilitation of the
The juvenile justice system has continued to take steps in the right direction. Scientific evidence concerning the mental development of humans during adolescence has been taken into account. It is more recognized today than it was twenty years ago that juveniles are not “miniature adults.” Instead, scientists have seen that the brain of a juvenile plays a role in their decision making skills and critical thinking processes (or lack
The historical development of the juvenile justice system in the United States is one that is focused on forming and separating trying juveniles from adult counterparts. One of the most important aspects is focusing on ensuring that there is a level of fairness and equality with respect to the cognitive abilities and processes of juvenile as it relates to committing crime. Some of the most important case legislation that would strengthen the argument in regard to the development of the juvenile justice system is related to the reform of the justice system during the turn of the 19th century. Many juveniles were unfortunately caught in the crosshairs of being tried as adults and ultimately receiving punishments not in line with their ability
To answer this question we must first look at what would make a juvenile incompetent to stand trial in a criminal court. When a youth's competence is questioned the court will order a forensic mental health evaluation of the youth by a qualified professional, often a psychologist or psychiatrist and the evaluation assesses the youth's mental health and intellectual capacities ("Overview | Collaborative For Change," n.d.) Most importantly, it includes a detailed inquiry into the specific abilities associated with competence to stand trial-what the youth understands, knows, believes, and can do that is relevant for participating in a defense ("Overview | Collaborative