Although the early juvenile justice system did not require that adolescent defendants be able to understand and participate in their legal proceedings, courts have increasingly required that adolescent defendants, like adult criminal defendants, be competent to proceed to adjudication (competent to stand trial). This has raised a unique set of challenges for the courts and mental health clinicians. Research has indicated that young adolescents have high rates of deficits in competence-related legal capacities in comparison with adults. As described below, however, little is known about assessing and treating adjudicative incompetence in youth, and legal standards regarding youths’ adjudicative competence remain unclear. Legal Standards for Juvenile Competence Since the 1700s, the legal system has required that adult defendants tried in criminal courts be competent to proceed to adjudication. More specifically, the law requires that criminal defendants be able to understand the nature of the legal proceedings, appreciate the significance and possible consequences of these proceedings, communicate with their attorney, and reason about relevant legal decisions, such as how to plead. If defendants lack these capacities, they can be found incompetent, in which case their adjudication is typically suspended, and they are treated in an effort to restore their competence. The early juvenile justice system, which was developed in Illinois in 1904, did not require that adolescent defendants be competent to proceed to adjudication. Because early juvenile justice was designed to be rehabilitative rather than punitive, it was not considered necessary that youth be able to understand and participate in their legal proceedings. However, during the 1990s, public concerns about youth violence rose to significant levels and drove a series of key legislative changes that allowed the transfer of adolescents to adult court to become easier and more common and for juveniles tried in juvenile court to be given harsher penalties. Given the adult-like penalties that can now be given to youth, courts have increasingly required that adolescent defendants be competent to proceed to adjudication. At present, the specific nature of competence standards in juvenile courts remains unsettled. Although courts have generally required that adolescents have the same types of legal capacities as adults, some jurisdictions have held that lower levels of these capacities may suffice for adolescents in juvenile court. Another issue that remains undetermined pertains to possible bases for findings of incompetence among adolescents. Although mental disorders and mental retardation are the most commonly recognized sources of incompetence, some adolescents may be incompetent owing to developmental immaturity rather than mental disorders or mental retardation. However, it is currently unclear whether jurisdictions will recognize developmental immaturity as a legitimate basis for a finding of incompetence. Possible Sources of Adjudicative Incompetence in Youth Legal deficits in youth may stem from very different sources. One possible cause of incompetence may be mental disorders. For instance, a young girl with a thought disorder may have a paranoid delusion that her attorney is conspiring against her and thus refuse to tell her attorney critical information regarding her case, a youth with symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder […]
Criminal Justice Research Papers
Adult Attachment Interview (AAI)
The Adult Attachment Interview (AAI), developed by Mary Main and associates, has been identified as an effective, psychometrically sound instrument with which to measure an individual’s internal working model or state of mind regarding childhood attachment. The potentially detrimental influences of poor recall, social desirability, and naive lying associated with self-report measures of childhood attachment are substantially bypassed with the AAI. The AAI does not make classifications based primarily on reported events in childhood but rather on the thoughtfulness and coherency with which the adult is able to describe and evaluate these childhood experiences and their effects. The AAI is a structured, semiclinical 20-question interview designed to elicit the individual’s account of his or her childhood attachment experiences, together with his or her evaluations of those experiences on present functioning. It explores the quality of these childhood relationships and the memories that might justify them. The AAI is transcribed verbatim, with all hesitations carefully recorded and with only the transcript used in the analysis of the interview. The AAI results in five classifications of state of mind regarding childhood attachment, which parallel those derived from M. D. S. Ainsworth’s system, which is based on the “Strange Situation.” Briefly, this procedure entails having the child enter an unfamiliar laboratory setting with a stranger present, filled with toys, with his or her caregiver. The caregiver then leaves twice and returns twice over a 20-minute period. Based on their responses, individuals are classified into one of the five attachment categories described below. Individuals with a secure state of mind regarding attachment value relationships and grow to desire intimacy with others. Individuals classified as Dismissing tend to be devaluing of relationships. Such individuals may idealize relationships from their past but are cut off from related feelings or dismiss their significance. They may also be derogating of attachment in that they demonstrate a contemptuous dismissal of attachment relationships. Individuals with a preoccupied state of mind are described as confused and unobjective. They may seem passive, vague or angry, conflicted, and unconvincingly analytical. The Unresolved category deals specifically with loss and abuse, and the Cannot Classify category is used when an individual does not fit clearly into any of the other classifications. Individuals categorized into one of the two disorganized patterns (i.e., Unresolved or Cannot Classify) of attachment can always be assigned to a best-fitting organized (Secure, Dismissing, Preoccupied) classification as well. That is, all individuals are believed to have one overriding organized state of mind regarding childhood attachment. Several studies have examined the psychometric properties of the AAI (see Marinus H. van Ijzendoorn and Marian J. Bakermans-Kranenburg, 1996, for a summary). The AAI state-of-mind classifications are stable across 5-year periods, within 77% to 90%. One study found that individuals’ response to the Strange Situation at 1 year of age was highly correlated (80%) to their AAI classification 20 years later. The AAI has been found to be unrelated to measures of intelligence, to both long- and short-term memory, to discourse patterns when individuals are interviewed […]
Evaluation of Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances in Capital Cases
If a defendant is found guilty of a capital crime, the triers of fact are called on to weigh the significance of the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case and to use such judgments to decide whether the defendant will receive the death penalty or a life sentence. During the sentencing phase, the prosecution presents the relevant aggravating factors of the case, while the defense is charged with the duty of providing mitigation factors. Although no standard model exists to offer procedures for the investigation of mitigating factors, scholars, clinicians, and researchers have offered recommendations concerning the common types of information needed and the appropriate ways to present it to the jury. In all cases, a mitigation evaluation is conducted with the goal of humanizing the defendant to the jury, in the hope that they will not recommend the death penalty. During the penalty phase of a capital offense trial, the triers of fact (i.e., the judge or jury depending on the state) are presented with two types of information: (1) aggravating factors (i.e., facts from the case that make it especially serious or heinous) and (2) mitigating factors (i.e., facts from the case that may reduce the defendant’s moral culpability). As set forth in Ring v. Arizona (2002), to come forward with a recommendation for death, the jury must first be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the state has met its burden of proof with respect to the presence of one or more aggravating factors. Once this has been done, the defense is required to present mitigating factors with the goal of convincing the trier of fact that this individual does not deserve the penalty of death. The driving force behind this practice is the U.S. Supreme Court’s assertion in Furman v. Georgia (1972) that sentences in capital cases should be individualized and should not be disproportionate or inappropriate given the mitigating factors in the case. Aggravating factors in a capital case are often readily apparent from the circumstances of the crime. Like other states, the state of Texas has statutory aggravating factors that are precisely defined. Three examples of the criteria set forth by the Texas Penal Code are (a) if the person murders more than one person during the same criminal transaction; (b) if the person murders an individual under 6 years of age; and (c) if the person intentionally commits a murder in the course of committing (or attempting to commit) kidnapping, burglary, robbery, aggravated sexual assault, arson, or obstruction or retaliation. In contrast to aggravating factors, which are established by statute, mitigating factors can be anything the defense chooses to present that it believes may sway the trier of fact to determine that life without parole is the proper and just sentence in the particular case. The following list provides just a few examples of the most common mitigating factors that are brought forward in a capital trial: history of neglect and/or abuse during the formative years, the presence of a mental illness, […]
Aggravating and Mitigating Factors Effect on Jurors in Capital Trials
Aggravating factors are elements of the crime or the defendant’s prior criminal record that not only make the defendant eligible for the death penalty but also serve to make the defendant more likely to receive the death penalty. Mitigating factors are elements of the crime or the defendant’s character and background that could make the defendant less likely to receive the death penalty. Statutes across the United States list many aggravating and mitigating factors that could be presented at trial. The existing research in psychology and law shows that jurors are sensitive to some factors but not to others. Experimental research has compared hypothetical cases in which various aggravating and mitigating factors are either present or absent. Other research, especially the Capital Jury Project, has surveyed or interviewed jurors who served in a death penalty case about what factors they considered important when making their decision. Aggravating Factors Jurors are more likely to sentence to death defendants who have committed a heinous, brutal, or cruel murder. Such crimes include those involving a single victim who suffers a lot of pain before death and also crimes with multiple victims. The brutality of a murder triggers jurors’ desire for retribution, or punishing someone for the harm that he or she has caused. Several lines of research show that jurors treat more severe crimes more harshly when assigning punishment in general, not just in death penalty cases. Jurors may not understand what the words heinous or atrocious mean, or they may believe that all murders are heinous. Thus, courts must instruct jurors that this aggravating factor is limited in some way, so that they are supposed to apply it only in cases involving torture, very serious physical abuse, or extreme depravity. However, even without such extreme case facts, jurors will sentence a defendant to death more often if the crime is more severe and causes more harm. Usually, in death penalty trials, a separate listed factor is included for murders with multiple victims, because heinousness is a specific legal term measuring how much suffering occurred before the victim’s death. Jurors also consider the future dangerousness of a defendant—whether he or she is likely to commit another serious crime. In some states, jurors are specifically asked to decide whether the defendant is likely to re-offend, but even when not asked, jurors often bring this issue up during deliberations. The more the jurors fear that the defendant could re-offend, or even be released on parole, the more likely they are to sentence the defendant to death. Similarly, if the defendant has a prior criminal record that includes violent crimes, he or she will be seen as more dangerous, and jurors are more likely to sentence that defendant to death than defendants with no prior record. Jurors are also affected by victim characteristics and victim impact statements. If the victim is a public figure or a policeman, jurors are more likely to sentence the defendant to death. The murder of such a person causes more harm […]
Alcohol Intoxication Impact on Eyewitness Memory
Alcohol consumption has a significant effect on eyewitness identification abilities, including the accuracy of perpetrator descriptions and identification accuracy in showups (an identification procedure where only one individual is shown to the witness) and lineups (an identification procedure where several individuals, usually six in the United States, are shown to the eyewitness). Understanding the effects of alcohol consumption on memory is critical for the police, investigators, prosecutors, defense counsel, judges, and jurors to be able to judge the veracity of statements and evidence that are put forward in cases where alcohol consumption was present. The research to date that has examined the effects of moderate levels of alcohol intoxication on eyewitness memory and identification accuracy has found that intoxicated witnesses are less likely to be accurate in their descriptions of events and people but are just as likely as sober witnesses to make a correct identification decision. In addition, intoxicated witnesses may be more susceptible to suggestion and suggestive procedures than are sober witnesses. However, as research has suggested, this finding should not necessarily be taken to imply that intoxicated witnesses are always less reliable than their sober counterparts. Ethyl alcohol, or ethanol, is a depressant that is produced by the fermentation of yeast, sugars, and starches and is most commonly found in beer, wine, and liquor. After it is ingested, alcohol is metabolized by enzymes in the liver. However, because the liver can only metabolize small amounts of alcohol at a time, the remaining alcohol is left to circulate through the body until it can be processed. Alcohol impairs judgment and coordination as well as attention level, and the more alcohol consumed, the greater the impairment. For example, in all states in the United States, the maximum level of blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) that is permitted to be under the “legal limit” for driving a motor vehicle is 0.08% (80 mg/dl). However, the effects of alcohol intoxication as described above are likely to be present at BACs much lower than is set by the legal limit. Although scientists and researchers know that alcohol consumption causes reduced coordination and impaired judgment, the effects of alcohol intoxication on memory has received little attention from psychology and law researchers. One of the potential reasons for this is that previous research has focused on the effects of alcohol from a public safety perspective (i.e., setting legal limits for driving) and not from a victim or witness perspective. However, given that there are more than 450,000 violent crimes in bars and nightclubs every year in the United States (and therefore more than 450,000 victims/witnesses who are likely to have consumed at least some alcohol), research on this topic is extremely valuable. The general findings from the few research studies that have investigated the memory and identification abilities of intoxicated witnesses are described below after a brief review of alcohol decision-making theory and a description of the research methodologies that are used in this field of research. Theoretical Review Not long ago, researchers believed that alcohol […]
Alibi Witnesses
An alibi, in its most basic form, is a plea that one was not present when a crime was being committed. In practice, alibis can be considerably more complex than a simple narrative story. In the criminal justice system, alibis function as exculpatory evidence—a good alibi should rule out the alibi provider as a potential suspect in a case or provide reasonable doubt as to a defendant’s guilt in a criminal trial. Psychological research into the study of alibis is a relatively new area in psychology and law. This research paper summarizes some of the major findings and introduces the terminology of the existing psychological literature. It is unclear how alibis are used in the early stages of criminal investigations, and the rules about how and when alibi evidence can be used in the court system vary greatly across jurisdictions. To function as exculpatory evidence, alibis must contain both a believable story and credible proof of the alibi provider’s whereabouts. Psychology is in a unique position to study alibis from both sides of the criminal process: Alibi generation relies largely on the memory of alibi providers and corroborating witnesses, and alibi evaluation occurs as the police, attorneys, and jurors decide the exculpatory worth of the alibi. The study of alibi generation can be informed by autobiographical memory research, and alibi evaluation can benefit from deception detection and suspect interrogation research. However, psychological research on alibis specifically is still relatively new and has focused thus far on the evaluation of alibis. Alibis are evaluated according to their believability by detectives, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and jury members at different stages of the criminal process. For an alibi to be judged believable, credible proof of the alibi provider’s whereabouts is essential, and it can take one of two forms: physical evidence and person evidence. Credible physical evidence ties the alibi provider to a specific place and time; for example, an airline boarding pass includes time and location information and requires identification, making it highly unlikely that someone other than the ticket holder would be able to obtain the pass. The research to date has indicated that physical evidence corroborating an alibi carries considerable weight with alibi evaluators; mock jurors have rated alibis with supporting physical evidence as more believable than alibis without such evidence. However, evaluators do not seem to differentiate between physical evidence that might be easily fabricated, such as a cash receipt, and evidence that is more difficult to fabricate, such as a security video. Person evidence consists of testimony by an alibi corroborator, or alibi witness, as to the whereabouts of the alibi provider. Preliminary research has shown that mock jurors are quick to distinguish among alibi corroborators according to the corroborator’s relationship to the alibi provider. Specifically, corroborators who could conceivably have a motivation to lie for the alibi provider (such as a close relative or a good friend) are viewed as less credible than corroborators who have no relationship to the alibi provider. Some research has suggested that […]
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) has come to refer broadly to a range of processes (e.g., bilateral negotiation, fact finding, mediation, summary jury trial, arbitration) that are used in transactional (e.g., design contracts, develop regulations), dispute prevention, and dispute resolution contexts. ADR processes operate in public and private settings, such as courts, government agencies, community mediation centers, schools, workplaces, and private providers, to address an array of substantive issues (e.g., custody, torts, contracts, misdemeanors, environmental issues). This research paper focuses on a subset of ADR processes: those that involve a neutral third party and serve as an alternative to court adjudication of civil, divorce, and minor criminal disputes. The processes that are most commonly used are described in the following section. The goals and asserted benefits of ADR include enhancing disputants’ satisfaction with the resolution process and its outcome; producing better outcomes and increased compliance; improving the disputants’ relationship and reducing future disputes; providing faster, less expensive, and confidential case resolution; increasing disputants’ access to a hearing on the merits; and reducing caseloads and the use of court resources. These goals do not all apply to, and are not of equal importance in, every ADR process and setting. Criticisms of ADR, particularly when its use is mandatory, include that it lacks procedural safeguards, decreases public participation and scrutiny, reduces the available legal precedents and reference points, creates pressures to settle, provides second-class justice, and impedes access to trial by adding another step in the litigation process. Empirical field research on the efficacy of ADR, and on the impact of process, third-party, and dispute characteristics, is discussed in a subsequent section. Third-Party ADR Processes Third-party ADR processes fall into two main categories. The first involves processes such as arbitration, in which the third party decides the case for the disputants. The second category involves processes such as mediation, in which the third party assists the disputants in reaching their own resolution. If the disputants reach an agreement, it is legally enforce-able; if they do not, the case continues in litigation. Although most disputes settle before trial, a neutral third party can help disputants overcome the logistical, strategic, and cognitive barriers to bilateral negotiation that often impede early or optimal settlements. Disputants can enter ADR as the result of a predispute contractual agreement to use ADR or, after a dispute has arisen, as a result of mutual agreement, judicial referral of a specific case, or court-mandated use for an entire category of cases. In both court-connected and private ADR, the proceedings are private, and the content of any agreement reached is confidential and not reported to the court. Below is a general description of several commonly used processes. How each is implemented varies with the type of setting and disputes, as well as with the specific ADR provider. Arbitration involves a hearing during which the disputants’ lawyers present evidence and arguments to a single arbitrator, or sometimes a panel of three arbitrators, who renders a decision. In voluntary private arbitration, the arbitrator’s decision […]
AMBER Alert System
The AMBER Alert system was designed to help rescue missing children. Law enforcement entities release information about the child and the perpetrator through public announcements on television, roadside signs, and the Internet. Citizens are expected to remember the information and report sightings to the police. Although the system has not been well evaluated, a number of social science methods used in other areas (e.g., eyewitness memory research, bystander effect) may be applicable. Concerns have been raised that the program has been overused by the authorities, who issue alerts in nonserious cases, and that alerts are most “effective” when relatively little threat is posed, such as when a child is abducted by a parent. AMBER Alert and Social Science The AMBER Alert system makes many assumptions about human behavior that remain untested. The system assumes that individuals have the ability to remember the information presented in the alert and to identify the perpetrator or the child at a later time. Research on cognitive load and exposure duration suggests that brief messages presented while the recipient is busy (e.g., driving a car) may not be acquired, although these notions have not been tested with AMBER Alert messages. Retention failure and memory reconstruction may also make it difficult to properly remember the alert message. Retrieval problems, such as source attribution errors, may also make it difficult for citizens to fulfill their role in the AMBER Alert system. Eyewitness memory research has indicated that individuals are not always able to recognize a face seen before; this can be especially true for faces of another race. These research techniques could be used to test citizens’ ability to become informants. Social influences and individual differences could affect one’s willingness to report. Informants may feel that they are too busy to get involved with an investigation, or they could decide that because other citizens will report the sighting, there is no need for them to report (i.e., the bystander effect). The people around informants could doubt their memory, influencing them not to report. On the other hand, the high severity of a crime may make informants more likely to report. Gender, race, and past experiences with the police have also been shown to affect one’s willingness to help. Although these studies were not conducted using AMBER Alert as a framework, they may suggest avenues for future study. There is also concern that AMBER alerts will lead to “AMBER fatigue,” a phenomenon in which individuals stop paying attention to the alerts because they have seen so many of them. There is also concern that the great number of alerts could lead to a heightened level of public fear and to perceptions that abductions are more common than they actually are, as suggested by research on the availability heuristic and social construction of fear by the media. Alternately, the presence of the AMBER Alert system could convince people that the system is deterring abductions; this could lead to a reduction in the perceived need for prevention programs. Stories of […]
American Bar Association Resolution on Mental Disability and the Death Penalty
The question of how individuals with severe mental disabilities should be sentenced when they are convicted of capital (death penalty) crimes is a vexing one in U.S. society. On one hand, the death penalty is an established part of the criminal justice system in the United States, which exists in part as a reflection of our society’s outrage in response to certain kinds of violent crime. On the other hand, in the words of former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, a society’s “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” require that we recognize that there must be exceptions to this most extreme form of punishment. This research paper describes the Resolution of the American Bar Association on Mental Disability and the Death Penalty, which was endorsed by the American Psychological Association and other professional organizations, and the Resolution’s approach to the difficult problem of mental disability and capital punishment. The American Bar Association (ABA) formed an interdisciplinary task force to consider this problem. The Task Force on Mental Disability and the Death Penalty (hereinafter “Task Force”) was established by the ABA’s Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities and chaired by Ronald Tabak (Task Force, 2006). Many of the 24 members of the Task Force were attorneys, including representation from the National Alliance on Mental Illness, but there were also representatives from the American Psychological Association (the three authors of this research paper) and the American Psychiatric Association. The Task Force worked for 2 years (April 2003 to March 2005) on considering, debating, and crafting the Resolution that is quoted in this research paper. It was approved by the ABA in August 2006, after having previously been endorsed by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the National Alliance on Mental Illness. One of the important initial questions facing the Task Force was whether mental disability should constitute a per se bar to capital punishment—that is, whether individuals with certain kinds of mental disability should not need to demonstrate anything further in order to be excluded from consideration for the death penalty. There were differing views among Task Force members on this question. The vast majority of questions in mental health law require consideration not only of mental disability but also of specific functional legal capacities that vary according to the legal question, and the relationship between the mental disability and the functional capacities. For example, an individual with a severe mental disability would not be adjudicated incompetent to stand trial only on the basis of that disability; the court would also consider the functional legal criteria involving a rational and factual understanding of the individual’s legal situation and the capacity to assist counsel in his or her own defense. The defendant who experiences deficits in these functional legal capacities that are caused by symptoms of a severe mental disability is much more likely to be adjudicated incompetent to stand trial by a court. So it did not appear sufficient to craft […]
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Psychologists may become involved with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) through consultations with employers and workers or as an expert witness in litigation involving the act. In all these roles, the psychologist must gain an understanding of the many definitions in the act and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulations mandated by it. The ADA not only is a valuable tool for use by disabled people against discrimination but also an arena of practice for forensic psychologists. Although the ADA is a complex mixture of definitions and rules, the forensic practitioner may enter this arena using many of the skills developed in tort cases or in civil rights cases involving sex or race. This research paper describes the ADA, discusses the roles that psychologists may play in workplace consultations, and examines the use of psychological evaluations in litigation related to disability. Background of the Americans with Disabilities Act The ADA was signed into law in 1990 and came into effect 2 years later. The law was designed to eliminate discrimination against people with disabilities. The statute (42 U.S.C. 12101, Section 2 b (1), 1992) enabled the development of regulations by the EEOC and has been shaped by a number of U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The most obvious impact of the ADA is seen in its transformation of buildings, roads, sidewalks, buses, and restrooms into places where people with disabilities may function with fewer barriers. However, the advocates of disabled people who framed the ADA were more ambitious. The law intends to prevent individuals with disabilities from being discriminated against in hiring, training, compensation, and benefits. Under the ADA, it is illegal to classify an employee on the basis of disability or to participate in contracts that have the effect of discriminating against people with disabilities. The use of tests or other qualification standards that are not job related but result in screening out individuals with disabilities is also banned. Like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the ADA protects workers who file complaints with the EEOC or other agencies from retaliation by their employers. Under the ADA, employers are required to provide “reasonable accommodation” for workers with disabilities who could qualify for jobs with appropriate assistance. Mental Disabilities in the Americans with Disabilities Act Forensic psychologists working in cases involving the ADA must have an understanding of the specific definitions that shape how the act is used. An important definition in the act is the definition of disability: (1) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of an individual, (2) a record of such an impairment, or (3) being regarded as having such an impairment. A qualified individual with a disability is a person with a disability who has the basic qualifications for the job, including the skills, experience, education, and other job-related requirements required for the position the person either currently holds or wishes to obtain. In the context of the ADA, a qualified individual with a disability, […]