Post by Anja Nieser on Sept 26, 2006 16:20:10 GMT -5
Treating Juveniles Justly: Research Points the Way; MacArthur Foundation
Research Network Releases Briefs on Latest Research
New scientific understanding of development of the juvenile mind and
behavior is having a major impact on how young people are treated by the
nation's juvenile justice systems. The policy significance of the latest
findings were the topic of a conference organized by the MacArthur
Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice
in Washington last week for more than 200 attendees, representing all
aspects of the juvenile justice field.
The Supreme Court's 2005 decision outlawing the juvenile death penalty ran
counter to a decade-long trend toward ever-harsher punishments for
juveniles begun in 1995 after the sensationally reported contention by
John Dilulio and William Bennett that the U.S. faced a coming wave of
juvenile "superpredators." While the superpredator wave never
materialized, and the theory was thoroughly debunked, laws passed in
response remained and sparked serious scientific inquiry into the
appropriateness and effectiveness of such harsh penalties.
"The network set out to find scientific evidence of whether juveniles were
different enough from adults to merit different treatment by the courts,"
said Laurence Steinberg, director of the MacArthur Research Network. "What
we found was that young offenders are significantly unlike adults in ways
that matter a great deal for effective treatment, appropriate punishment
and delinquency prevention. Society needs a system that understands kids'
capacities and limits, and that punishes them in developmentally
appropriate ways."
The best-known finding of the research network on the competence of
juveniles to stand trial showed that a significant portion of youth under
age 15 are likely unable to participate competently in their own trials
owing to developmental immaturity. The network's research on criminal
blameworthiness was cited by Justice Kennedy in the juvenile death penalty
decision. The research shows that developmental characteristics of
adolescents -- including shortsightedness, impulsivity and susceptibility
to peer influence -- undermine their decision- making ability.
Preliminary findings from an ongoing study, Pathways to Desistance,
indicate that many of even the most serious offenders do not become
chronic criminals. The study, following 1,355 serious offenders aged 14 to
17 in 2 cities, finds that a majority of the adolescents report little or
no involvement in antisocial activities 3 years after their involvement
with the court. Moreover, a sizable group -- about 15 % -- goes from a
very high level of involvement to almost none.
"The scientific evidence stands in direct opposition to political
arguments of the past," says Steinberg, "We do juveniles great harm when
we adopt 'lock them all up' approaches that don't account for
developmental differences or anticipate juveniles' capacity for change.
Fortunately, decision-makers at the state level are following the research
and creating juvenile justice systems that both protect the public, and
care for the well-being of youthful offenders."
To further the development of evidence-based policies and practices, the
ADJJ has released issue briefs covering the latest scientific research on
competence to stand trial, criminal blameworthiness, juvenile psychopathy,
transfer of juveniles into criminal court, and findings from the Pathways
to Desistance study. These briefs are available for download at
www.adjj.org
(source : U.S. Newswire)
Research Network Releases Briefs on Latest Research
New scientific understanding of development of the juvenile mind and
behavior is having a major impact on how young people are treated by the
nation's juvenile justice systems. The policy significance of the latest
findings were the topic of a conference organized by the MacArthur
Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice
in Washington last week for more than 200 attendees, representing all
aspects of the juvenile justice field.
The Supreme Court's 2005 decision outlawing the juvenile death penalty ran
counter to a decade-long trend toward ever-harsher punishments for
juveniles begun in 1995 after the sensationally reported contention by
John Dilulio and William Bennett that the U.S. faced a coming wave of
juvenile "superpredators." While the superpredator wave never
materialized, and the theory was thoroughly debunked, laws passed in
response remained and sparked serious scientific inquiry into the
appropriateness and effectiveness of such harsh penalties.
"The network set out to find scientific evidence of whether juveniles were
different enough from adults to merit different treatment by the courts,"
said Laurence Steinberg, director of the MacArthur Research Network. "What
we found was that young offenders are significantly unlike adults in ways
that matter a great deal for effective treatment, appropriate punishment
and delinquency prevention. Society needs a system that understands kids'
capacities and limits, and that punishes them in developmentally
appropriate ways."
The best-known finding of the research network on the competence of
juveniles to stand trial showed that a significant portion of youth under
age 15 are likely unable to participate competently in their own trials
owing to developmental immaturity. The network's research on criminal
blameworthiness was cited by Justice Kennedy in the juvenile death penalty
decision. The research shows that developmental characteristics of
adolescents -- including shortsightedness, impulsivity and susceptibility
to peer influence -- undermine their decision- making ability.
Preliminary findings from an ongoing study, Pathways to Desistance,
indicate that many of even the most serious offenders do not become
chronic criminals. The study, following 1,355 serious offenders aged 14 to
17 in 2 cities, finds that a majority of the adolescents report little or
no involvement in antisocial activities 3 years after their involvement
with the court. Moreover, a sizable group -- about 15 % -- goes from a
very high level of involvement to almost none.
"The scientific evidence stands in direct opposition to political
arguments of the past," says Steinberg, "We do juveniles great harm when
we adopt 'lock them all up' approaches that don't account for
developmental differences or anticipate juveniles' capacity for change.
Fortunately, decision-makers at the state level are following the research
and creating juvenile justice systems that both protect the public, and
care for the well-being of youthful offenders."
To further the development of evidence-based policies and practices, the
ADJJ has released issue briefs covering the latest scientific research on
competence to stand trial, criminal blameworthiness, juvenile psychopathy,
transfer of juveniles into criminal court, and findings from the Pathways
to Desistance study. These briefs are available for download at
www.adjj.org
(source : U.S. Newswire)