Juveniles’ Competence to Stand Trial Laurence Steinberg, Ph.D. Temple University MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice

To improve decision-making in the juvenile and criminal justice systems with better and more complete knowledge about adolescent development To improve court and corrections practices affecting youthful offenders To inform policy debates about the appropriate treatment of juvenile offenders and the future of juvenile justice To inform the public discussion about juvenile crime MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice Long-Term Goals

Focal Issues Actual and Perceived Criminal Culpability of Youth At what age are individuals likely to have, or likely to be seen as having, the capabilities necessary to be held fully blameworthy for their offenses? At what age are individuals likely to have, or likely to be seen as having, the capabilities necessary to be held fully blameworthy for their offenses? Adjudicative Competence of Adolescents in the Juvenile and Criminal Justice Systems At what age are individuals likely to have the capabilities necessary to be competent to be adjudicated in an adversarial context? At what age are individuals likely to have the capabilities necessary to be competent to be adjudicated in an adversarial context? Risk, Amenability, and Desistance Among Serious Juvenile Offenders At what age are juveniles still capable of change? Can we identify the interventions that work for different offenders? What factors influence desistance from crime? What are the developmental trajectories associated with desistance from crime At what age are juveniles still capable of change? Can we identify the interventions that work for different offenders? What factors influence desistance from crime? What are the developmental trajectories associated with desistance from crime

Books Grisso and Schwartz: Youth on Trial (University of Chicago Press, 2000) Fagan and Zimring: The Changing Borders of Juvenile Justice (University of Chicago Press, 2000) Grisso: Double Jeopardy (University of Chicago Press, 2004) Zimring: An American Travesty (University of Chicago Press, 2000) Articles Grisso et al., “Juveniles’ Competence to Stand Trial” (Law and Human Behavior, 2003) Scott and Steinberg: “Blaming Youth” (Texas Law Review, 2003) Steinberg and Scott: “Less Guilty by Reason of Adolescence” (American Psychologist, 2003) Fagan: “Atkins, Adolescence, and the Maturity Heuristic” (New Mexico Law Review, 2003) Graham: “Priming Unconscious Racial Stereotypes About Adolescent Offenders” (Law and Human Behavior, in press)

MacArthur Juvenile Adjudicative Competence Study Thomas Grisso, Study Coordinator (University of Massachusetts) Elizabeth Cauffman (University of Pittsburgh) Sandra Graham (UCLA) Daniel Keating (University of Toronto) Edward Mulvey (University of Pittsburgh) Norman Poythress (University of South Florida) N. Dickon Reppucci (University of Virginia) Elizabeth Scott (University of Virginia) Robert Schwartz (Juvenile Law Center) Laurence Steinberg (Temple University) Jennifer Woolard (University of Florida) MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice

The Legal Standard for Competence to Stand Trial A defendant must have: A defendant must have: …sufficient present ability to consult with his attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding… …and a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him

Abilities Associated with Adjudicative Competence Factual Understanding Knowing basics about the charges, trial process, etc. Knowing basics about the charges, trial process, etc. Rational Understanding Ability to reason with factual information as it is understood Ability to reason with factual information as it is understood Decision-making that is not distorted by irrational beliefs Decision-making that is not distorted by irrational beliefs Consulting Counsel Understanding counsel’s inquiries Understanding counsel’s inquiries Able to respond to counsel inquiry in manner relevant for defense Able to respond to counsel inquiry in manner relevant for defense

A Lack of Competence is Not… … merely the presence of a mental or developmental disability …necessarily a constant or permanent condition (can often be modified) …a question of criminal responsibility, culpability, or blameworthiness

The Context of the Present Study Competence to stand trial generally an issue in cases involving mentally ill or mentally retarded defendants Increased number of juvenile defendants in criminal court Is developmental immaturity another contributor to incompetence? Do immature defendants exhibit legal decision-making that differs from that of older defendants?

The Basic Research Questions Do adolescents differ from adults in their abilities to participate as defendants in trials? If so, what types of youths manifest significant differences from adults? What kinds of deficits in their abilities are most relevant for law, policy, and practice?

Data Collection Sites (December, 1999 – May, 2001) Philadelphia, PALos Angeles, CA Gainesville, FL Eastern/Northern Virginia Gainesville, FL Eastern/Northern Virginia Recruitment in detention centers and jails, and in communities in targeted neighborhoodsRecruitment in detention centers and jails, and in communities in targeted neighborhoods Community sample demographically comparable to detained sample, but with no prior detentionsCommunity sample demographically comparable to detained sample, but with no prior detentions Centralized, uniform coordination of trained data collectors across all sitesCentralized, uniform coordination of trained data collectors across all sites

Final Sample Subjects = 1432 Interviewed, 1393 Retained * Legal Status Legal Status Ages Detained CommunityTotal Total *Subjects dropped if IQ<60 or if 25% of data missing *Subjects dropped if IQ<60 or if 25% of data missing

Percent Ages within Samples Ages Detained Community

Percent Gender & SES within Samples Gender Detained Community Female 3443 Male 6657 SES Lower Class 4136 Working Class Middle Class 2435

Percent Ethnicity within Samples Ethnicity Detained Community African-American 4040 Asian 1 1 Caucasian 3237 Hispanic 2621 Other 1 1

Ethnicity: Proportions Compared to National OJJDP Detention Data

Detained Sample Characteristics Current Charge Person (38%) Person (38%) Property (32%) Property (32%) Drug (18%) Drug (18%) Probation Violation (5%) Probation Violation (5%) Other (7%) Other (7%) Juveniles in sample less likely to be charged with drug crimes Juveniles in sample less likely to be charged with drug crimes Prior Experience Previously plead or found guilty (64%) Previously locked up overnight (53%) No differences on either variable between juveniles and adults

Independent Variables Demographics (age, gender, ethnicity, SES) Legal system experience Intelligence (WASI vocabulary and matrices) Symptoms of mental disturbance (MAYSI-2)

Measures of Abilities Relevant for Adjudicative Competence MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Criminal Adjudication (MacCAT-CA) Measures abilities relevant to established legal criteria Understanding Understanding Reasoning Reasoning Appreciation AppreciationScoring Actual numerical score based on rating of responses Actual numerical score based on rating of responses Whether respondent is “impaired” or “seriously impaired” based on pre-existing norms established in national study of mentally ill adults Whether respondent is “impaired” or “seriously impaired” based on pre-existing norms established in national study of mentally ill adults

Measures of Abilities Relevant for Adjudicative Competence MacArthur Judgment Evaluation (MacJEN) Judgment and reasoning in three legal situations: police questioning police questioning attorney consultation attorney consultation plea agreement decision making plea agreement decision makingScoring Content of responses Content of responses Aspects of decision-making Aspects of decision-making Risk orientation Future orientation

Factual and Rational Understanding

Understanding Respondent is read a hypothetical vignette about a bar room fight between “Fred” and “Reggie” 8 questions (2 possible points each, 0-16) Questions examine understanding of charges, penalties, purpose of trial, and basic functions of participants Uses a “test, teach, and re-test” process in 6 of the questions. Thus examines understanding “unaided” and understanding “after teaching”

Example of Understanding Items A.Let’s say that Fred’s case goes to court for a jury trial. What are some of the jobs of the jury? (Scored 2, 1, or 0 according to pre-determined criteria. If 2 points, proceed to next item. If 0 or 1 point, do B) B.Fred’s lawyer tells Fred what will happen if his case is decided at a jury trial. A group of people called a jury will listen to both sides of the case. The jury will decide whether Fred is guilty or not guilty. In your own words, tell me what Fred just found out about the jobs of the jury. (Assign 2, 1 or 0 for the item based on answer to B, or answer to A if better than B.)

Percent with Seriously Impaired Understanding Significance After Teaching: ≠ ≠ = 18-24

Reasoning 8 questions 5 require inferences about legal relevance of facts of the case (“reasoning about relevance”) 3 involve engagement in the process of decision-making (“processing decisions”)

Example: Reasoning about Relevance of Facts Fact 1: At the time of the fight, Fred was frightened because Reggie was acting like a tough guy. Fact 2: At the time of the fight, Fred had been getting along well with his friend Julie. If Fred’s lawyer wants to know what Fred might have been thinking at the time of the fight, which of these two facts would be more important to tell his lawyer? What are your reasons for picking that? (Score of 2, 1, or 0 based on whether #1 chosen, and whether reason given for choice suggests that there may have been a need for Fred to protect himself.)

Example: Processing Decisions Fred has two pleading options: Guilty with a plea agreement and sentence of 6 months Guilty with a plea agreement and sentence of 6 months Not guilty with up to 10 years if found guilty Not guilty with up to 10 years if found guilty What do you think Fred should do? What are advantages of (chosen alternative)? What are advantages of (chosen alternative)? What are disadvantages of (chosen alternative)? What are disadvantages of (chosen alternative)?

Percent with Seriously Impaired Reasoning Significance: ≠ = = 18-24

Appreciation Designed to identify delusional or highly distorted beliefs potentially influencing decisions 6 items of following type: Compared to other people who are in trouble with the law, do you think that you are more likely, less likely, or just as likely to be treated fairly by the legal system? (After choice..) What are your reasons for thinking that? (Score 2 if reasons are clearly plausible; 1 if reasons are questionably plausible; 0 indicates reason was clearly implausible, based on delusion or serious distortion; OR if subject offers no reason)

Percent with Seriously Impaired Appreciation Significance: ≠ ≠ = 18-24

Meaning of the Appreciation Scale Originally intended to identify delusional or highly distorted beliefs potentially influencing decisions In present study, “zero” answers typically were not delusional, but “I don’t know” With youths, lower appreciation scores appear to represent difficulties in being able to assess one’s own situation, but not because of delusional thinking Graphs that follow do not take appreciation into account and may underestimate prevalence of impairment

Percent with Seriously Impaired Understanding or Reasoning Significance: ≠ ≠ 18-24; = 18-24

Percent with Seriously Impaired Understanding or Reasoning

Mean IQ Scores

Percent with Seriously Impaired Understanding or Reasoning

Percent of Detained Juveniles with Seriously Impaired Understanding or Reasoning

With other variables controlled, MacCAT performance was NOT related to … GenderEthnicityLocale Socioeconomic status Prior experience in the justice system Symptoms of emotional and behavioral problems

SUMMARY One-fifth of year olds and one-third of year olds manifest deficiencies in understanding and reasoning comparable to mentally ill adults who are not competent to stand trial No significant differences between adults and adolescents aged 16 and older on these abilities. Performance on the MacCAT is strongly related to intelligence. Risk for incompetence is especially apparent among juvenile offenders with below-average IQ.

Judgment and Reasoning in Legal Situations

Design Individual is read a hypothetical story about “Joe” as lookout during armed robbery of storekeeper Three critical decision points Police interrogation Police interrogation Attorney consultation Attorney consultation Plea agreement Plea agreement Brief memory check for key facts

For each critical decision What are the options? What are the best and worst choices? Good and bad things Good and bad things Main reason why best is better than worst Main reason why best is better than worst Responses coded for Consideration of risks Consideration of risks Consideration of long- versus short-term Consideration of long- versus short-term

Police Interrogation What to do when picked up for questioning Options were Talk and Admit to everything Talk and Admit to everything Talk and Deny Involvement Talk and Deny Involvement Don’t Talk / Remain silent Don’t Talk / Remain silent

Best Interrogation Choice by Age

Consultation with Attorney Degree to which would consult with and talk with attorney Type of attorney varied Half had public defender Half had public defender Half had private attorney Half had private attorney Options were Tell everything Tell everything Tell some of the story Tell some of the story Deny involvement Deny involvement Don’t tell anything Don’t tell anything

Percent Recommending Full Disclosure to Attorney

Plea Agreement Considering whether to plead guilty or go to trial Respondent told that “most people” who go to trial for this crime are found guilty Balancing options Plea involves a certain shorter sentence but must give information about friends involved in crime Plea involves a certain shorter sentence but must give information about friends involved in crime Going to trial and risking a longer sentence Going to trial and risking a longer sentence

Plea Agreement Choice by Age

Compliance with Authority In each vignette, one choice represents compliance with an authority figure Police interrogation: Confession Police interrogation: Confession Attorney consultation: Full disclosure Attorney consultation: Full disclosure Plea Offer: Accepting the plea Plea Offer: Accepting the plea Created an index of compliance with authority by summing across vignettes (0-3)

Compliance with Authority by Age 11-13, ≠16-17, 18-24

Consideration of Risks When Making Legal Decisions Does individual recognize risks? Does individual consider likelihood of risks? Does individual consider impact of taking the risk?

Average Number of Risks Recognized Significance: = ≠ = 18-24

Average Likelihood of Risks Significance: = = ≠ 18-24

Average Potential Negative Impact of Risk Significance: = ≠ ≠ 16-17

Future Orientation Degree to which person recognizes potential long range consequences when considering options Coders categorize all the “possible good things” and “possible bad things” that might happen as long range or short range

Number of Long Term Consequences Mentioned Significance: ≠ 16-17

Summary Younger juveniles are more likely than older juveniles and adults to recommend confessing to police and accepting a plea agreement Juveniles 15 and under are more compliant with authority than older juveniles and adults Juveniles identify fewer risks, view them as less likely, and expect a less negative impact than older juveniles and adults. Younger juveniles less likely to consider long- term consequences of their legal decisions

The Basic Research Questions Do adolescents differ from adults in their abilities to participate as defendants in trials? Yes. Youths under 16 are significantly more likely to be impaired than adults. If so, what types of youths manifest significant differences? Youths under 14 and those of below-average intelligence are at greatest risk of impairment. What kinds of deficits in their abilities are most relevant for law, policy, and practice? Deficits are seen in understanding, reasoning, and appreciation, as well as in risk perception and the ability to think abut long-term consequences.

From Research to Practice Survey of 85 largest jurisdictions to ascertain frequency and nature of CST evaluations for juveniles Tremendous variability in number, comprehensiveness, and cost Publication of systematic guides for the assessment of juveniles’ competence to stand trial For examiners For examiners For attorneys and judges For attorneys and judges Regional conferences and workshops ongoing across the country

Questions for Policy and Practice Should there be presumptive ages below/above which juveniles should be assumed incompetent/competent? Should there be presumptive ages below/above which juveniles should be assumed incompetent/competent? Should immaturity alone be a basis for incompetence? Should immaturity alone be a basis for incompetence? Should competence be required for juvenile proceedings? Should competence be required for juvenile proceedings? If so, should criteria and standards be different from those applied in criminal court? If so, should criteria and standards be different from those applied in criminal court? Should competence evaluations for youth under a certain age be mandated before transfer to criminal court? Should competence evaluations for youth under a certain age be mandated before transfer to criminal court? What is appropriate response to juveniles found not competent in criminal court? What is appropriate response to juveniles found not competent in criminal court? What is appropriate response to juveniles found not competent in juvenile court? What is appropriate response to juveniles found not competent in juvenile court? What does competence “restoration” entail when basis for incompetence is immaturity? What does competence “restoration” entail when basis for incompetence is immaturity? What should we do with individuals while competence is restored? What should we do with individuals while competence is restored?