This is a paper I'd written for my Psychology and the Law class. Please don't steal any parts of this paper. You will get caught. Maybe even by me, when I (hopefully) TA the class next semester.
Adults, Juveniles, and Competency to Stand Trial: Comparisons and Implications
Anna Giannicchi
John Jay College of Criminal Justice
PSY 700 Spring 2016
Abstract
This research examines both the adult and juvenile defendant’s relationship with being found competent to stand trial. Adult and juvenile offenders will be compared to each other in several ways, including factors of being found incompetent to stand trial, treatment options, and implications of being considered incompetent to stand trial. The current studies focus on Miranda Rights and plea agreement inquiries, in relation to being found competent to stand trial or otherwise. This study analyses the relationship the juvenile defendant has with the court system, due to a lack of legal statute to evaluate juveniles specifically in competency, as well as offers insight into the distinctions between adult and juvenile competency evaluations. It was expected that juveniles would be found incompetent to stand trial more often, as well as would be offered different options for restoration to competency than adults. It was hypothesized that because juvenile defendants do not have a standard assessment for competency, there were other facets of the criminal justice system the juvenile defendant would not understand.
This research supports the theory that juvenile defendants are especially challenged when being evaluated for competency to stand trial, and that adult defendants can also lack a fundamental understanding of the courtroom, regardless of results in a competency exam. Finally, this paper examines the repercussions of this lack of understanding of the criminal justice system from both the adult and juvenile defendant.
Adults, Juveniles, and Competency to Stand Trial: Comparisons and Implications
In 1960, the United States Supreme Court established the current legal standard for determining adjudicative competence, or competency to stand trial (CST), in the landmark case Dusky v. United States, creating a recognized legal construct known as the Dusky Standard (Zapf & Roesch, 1994). Dusky stipulated a defendant’s competency to stand trial came from a “rational and factual understanding” (Dusky v. United States, 1960) of the charges against them, as well as the ability to consult with their lawyer with reasonable understanding (Dusky v. United States, 1960). Defendants in criminal court cases are found either competent or incompetent to stand trial, regardless of age (Zapf & Roesch, 1994). It is in this practice that the law is vague – juveniles can be found competent to stand trial, same as adults (Zapf & Roesch, 1994). One of the most important but still largely lacking in research is the difference between juveniles and adults in being found competent to stand trial. While every defendant must be found competent by the Dusky standard, researchers have long hypothesized that juveniles are not as capable of answering to the Dusky standard as adults (Zapf & Roesch, 1994).
This paper strives to seek out the differences between adults and juveniles being found incompetent to stand trial (IST), and describe the results and implications of being found incompetent to stand trial as a juvenile and as an adult, because existing research on CST is based nearly exclusively on adults or juveniles with no comparisons between the two. Furthermore, I want to understand the repercussions of juveniles and adults being found incompetent to stand trial, because the research on competency is largely about only one facet of the criminal justice system – the competence to stand trial. I hypothesize that juveniles and adults will be found incompetent to stand trial for different reasons, and that the treatment options for juveniles and adults will be different, as well. Lastly, I hypothesize that the insinuations of being found incompetent to stand trial will be meaningful in both adults and juveniles.
Competency to Stand Trial
In criminal court, when the question of CST is posed, the court requests an evaluation from a mental health professional on knowing whether the defendant has any mental illness or mental defect that would interfere with their ability to participate in proceedings of the court (Pillay, 2014). The court also seeks evidence from a mental health professional on whether the defendant had a mental illness or mental defect at the time of the examination, and by that, likely, the time of the trial (Pillay, 2014). There are standardized assessment tools that have been developed to help assess adult competency (Baranoski, 2003). Although there is no statutory distinction between adult and child competency, most courts recognize that cases with adolescents are different (Baranoski, 2003). In this case, a competency evaluation is adjusted to meet the needs of the juvenile and the court (Baranoski, 2003).
Applying the Dusky Standard to Juveniles
Due to a significant increase in violent crimes committed by juveniles in the past two decades, legislature in virtually every state considered rejecting juveniles from juvenile court, instead of having juvenile defendants with violent crime accusations go to trial in adult criminal court (Sanborn, 2009). In 1967, the Supreme Court’s decision in In re Gault validated that juveniles fall under the United States Constitution, and therefore have a right to a competency test (Romaine, Kemp, & DeMatteo, 2010). It is in applying the Dusky Standard to juvenile cases that the statute becomes unclear – it is much more uncertain whether Dusky applies equally to juvenile court, and if Dusky standards should be different for juvenile defendants in criminal court (Sanborn, 2009). Twenty states consistently process defendants in juvenile court without a clear standard for CST, while eighteen have implemented detailed standards on CST in juvenile court (Sanborn, 2009).
The absence of research on the Dusky Standard and juveniles is upsetting, but understandable. Juveniles being sentenced in criminal court is an increasing phenomenon, but most juvenile defendants end up in family court (McKee, 199). Often, a CST test will not be asked for when a juvenile is in family court, first and foremost because CST of juveniles in family court goes unrecognized in the majority of states (McKee, 1998). It is also an infrequently raised issue because lawyers are unsure of whether to act as a criminal defense attorney, or a guardian ad litem of sorts (McKee, 1998). Lastly, family court is still largely considered to have an ending of rehabilitation and therapy, not adversarial proceeding (McKee, 1998). Even so, many juveniles whose CST should be questioned tend to go through the courts under-identified and unrecognized (McKee, 1998). In most jurisdictions, any member of the court can raise the issue of juvenile CST, including the prosecutor, the judge, the guardian at litem, and the defense attorney (Warren et al., 2009). It is the defense attorney who has the primary responsibility to recognize concerns in competency, and in most instances, must prove incompetence when the issue is contested (Warren et al., 2009). This study evaluated how defense attorneys indicated they had concerns about competency in 10% of their clients, but only a little more than half of those attorneys actually followed through with a competency evaluation (Warren et al., 2009). Not only this, but older youths are more likely to be considered competent by judges, which suggests that judges may be very much influenced by chronological age, instead of descriptions in evaluation reports of CST (Warren et al., 2009).
Juveniles and Competency to Stand Trial
Juveniles Found Competent to Stand Trial
Juveniles are presumed to be competent unless the issue of incompetence is raised in court (Soulier & Scott, 2010). Sanborn’s (2009) study on juveniles’ competency showed how, for the most part, juveniles grew to become more competent to stand trial as they aged (Sanborn, 2009). A thirteen-year-old could identify trial participants, their roles in the courtroom, and the purpose of the trial (Sanborn, 2009). They also knew a defendant was facing charges and consequences (Sanborn, 2009). By fourteen, the gap between adolescents’ and adults’ competency began to close; there were few differences in understanding court-related materials, and some showed the same level of CST as adults (Sanborn, 2009). By fifteen, juveniles were essentially as capable as adults in assisting their attorneys by giving information about their experiences, and they started developing the ability to think abstractly about hypothetical future conditions (Sanborn, 2009). The only thing juveniles could not match to adults with at sixteen years old was their knowledge and understanding of plea bargaining (Sanborn, 2009). Romaine et al.’s (2010) research best explains why: juveniles from 11-15 are more likely than young adults to make decisions that comply with authority, which could mean a confession to the police, or an acceptance of a plea agreement (Romaine et al., 2010). Romaine et al. (2010) hypothesized that adolescents have a much stronger tendency to please authority figures by giving the desired or “right” answer (Romaine et al., 2010).
One study attempted to find themes that would deem a juvenile CST. Four themes were written: a factual understanding of simple legal constructs, the ability to effectively communicate with one’s lawyer, basic decision-making skills when faced with something complex like a legal decision, and the ability to employ legal information when necessary (Warren, Jackson, & Jones, 2016). The study also noted that appreciation-related abilities, which were previously considered high-level abilities, were usually less impaired among juveniles than a fundamental understanding of the court process (Warren et al., 2016). The study posed the question – could a juvenile be found incompetent in adult criminal court, but assessed in the context of juvenile court and found competent (Warren et al., 2016)?
It is interesting to consider how in many other contexts, children and adolescents are considered “legally disabled” (Baranoski, 2003). Adolescents cannot enter contracts to make binding decisions, but when arrested, the juvenile is considered competent (Soulier & Scott, 2010). Some states have statutes that effectively contradict themselves. In Connecticut, the minimum age for adult court is sixteen, but if a crime is serious enough, a fourteen-year-old can be adjudicated as an adult (Baranoski, 2003). However, when a child under 18 is sentenced to appear in court, an adult guardian is required to stand with them (Baranoski, 2003). This means the child is incompetent to go before court without an adult nearby, but is considered competent enough to continue the case (Baranoski, 2003). A few states, such as Virginia, already expect a CST test before consideration of transferring a juvenile to adult court (Grisso et al., 2003). Juvenile competence is recognized only in a few state jurisdictions but is allowed in every state, which makes it possible to raise juvenile CST even in states that do not recognize it explicitly (Heilbrun, Hawk, & Tate, 1996). Still, the main issue of CST in juveniles is that there is no standard for the components of juvenile competence, and no instructions on how they can be measured (Heilbrun et al., 1996). However, juveniles found incompetent to stand trial have specific symptoms seen time and time again.
Juveniles Found Incompetent to Stand Trial
While adults’ main problems in being found IST were old age, mental retardation, and serious psychotic diagnosis (Zapf & Roesch, 1994), few adults are found incompetent to stand trial (Romaine et al., 2010). However, younger adolescents are found IST at much higher rates (Romaine et al., 2010). The four main factors considered in most competency evaluations for juveniles are: intellectual disability; mental illness; developmental immaturity; and developmental disorders (Stepanyan, Sidhu, & Bath, 2015). These issues become more complex when realizing the potential symptom variability in juveniles because they are still in their developmental stages (Stepanyan et al., 2015). In addition, intellectual disabilities are already overrepresented in the juvenile delinquency population, making it a potential predictor of juvenile competency status (Stepanyan et al., 2015). IQ plays an interesting role in being found incompetent to stand trial in juveniles (Wobler, 2005). When IQ scores in juveniles are below 75, IST increases in youth under 14 years old, but 16 and 17-year-old perpetrators with IQs below 75 had no difference in CST than adults (Wobler, 2005).
Another study found that juveniles found IST were likely to be attending school at the time, but had a much higher rate of special education classes and needs (Baerger, Griffin, Lyons, & Simmons, 2003). The adolescents were also less likely to be living with their parents, and more likely to be in state custody (Baerger et al., 2003). They were more likely to have received some sort of mental health treatment, but less likely to abuse drugs, and more likely to have suffered sexual abuse, physical abuse, and neglect (Baerger et al., 2003). Finally, the researchers found that twelve-year-olds were found not competent to stand trial, having not developed the rational and factual understanding of a courtroom and charges (Baerger et al., 2003). Warren, Jackson, and Jones, (2016) study found that the most vulnerable group of juveniles found IST was made up of youth who suffered from a combination of mental illness and mental retardation (Warren et al., 2016).
Juveniles and Psychosocial/Developmental Maturity
Nearly every empirical study done with juveniles and CST will reference maturity as one of the reasons juveniles are often found not competent to stand trial, as opposed to adults. The Romaine et al. study found that while few adults are found IST, juveniles are found IST much more often (Romaine et al., 2010). While mental illness and mental retardation are usually associated with adults and their CST, a quarter of juveniles found IST did not have either of these diagnoses – developmental immaturity was theorized to be the explanation as to why these adolescents were found incompetent (Romaine et al., 2010). In fact, 2/3 of mental health professionals in charge of court-ordered forensic evaluations have declared a juvenile incompetent because of this immaturity (Romaine et al., 2010). One empirical study determined that even though older adolescents can perform similarly to adults on many cognitive tasks, they might make decisions that vary from adults, because of emotional and social immaturity (Mayzer, Bradley, Rusinko, & Ertelt, 2009). The study cited “suggestibility” as one of these things – interrogative pressure is different for an adolescent than an adult, specifically, adolescents have more stimulation in the brain when viewing fearful expressions, while adults have sophisticated cognitive tasks that can moderate those responses (Mayzer et al., 2009). The study concluded by postulating that even when being prosecuted for the same crimes, some adolescents may be less culpable than most adults, due to their psychosocial immaturity (Mayzer et al., 2009). Furthermore, although judges and attorneys will recognize immaturity as a cause for incompetence, they will consistently rate it as less important than mental retardation or mental illness (Warren et al., 2009).
While there is perhaps an unwillingness for members of the courtroom to consider maturity as a legitimate reason for IST, several researchers have hypothesized that developmental factors such as maturity may result in differences in decision making in juveniles and adults (Grisso et al., 2003). Adults have a better understanding of the future, as well as a better perception of risk, and are less likely to succumb to peer pressure (Grisso et al., 2003).
Restoration of Competency to Stand Trial
Adults
As mentioned earlier, a test for competency to stand trial is not only a way to find if the defendant has an understanding of the charges brought against them as well as an ability to assist their lawyer, but a way to postpone trial until competency is restored (Zapf & Roesch, 1994). Also, adult CST can only be conceded by the presence of a mental illness or mental defect (Soulier & Scott, 2010). In adult court in the United States, around 60,000 CST evaluations are performed annually (Soulier & Scott, 2010). In Zapf and Roesch’s (1994) study of adults found IST, nearly 75% of adult defendants that were found IST were returned to court with restored competency in a time frame of around six months (Zapf & Roesch, 1994). Complications in restoring someone to be CST included mental retardation, a psychotic diagnosis, especially one that caused long periods of hospitalization, and older age (Zapf & Roesch, 1994). Defendants that were predicted to be more likely restored to competency tended to have more serious, violent criminal histories, but less serious diagnoses, such as a nonpsychotic mental disorder (Zapf & Roesch, 1994). If the basis for the defendant’s incompetence was a permanent disorder, such as mental retardation, or an enduring psychiatric disorder that had resulted in long hospital stays, the result was a much more limited grasp on what the evaluator of CST attempted to explain to the defendant (Zapf & Roesch, 1994). Usually, when an adult defendant is found IST, they will obtain treatment and restoration services at a forensic hospital or psychiatric facility for restoration purposes (Stepanyan et al., 2015). Among adults, somewhere between 80%-90% are restored to competence, with around 7% remaining unrestorable (Warren et al., 2009).
Juveniles
In McKee’s (1998) study, less than 60% of juveniles were judged as CST by evaluators (McKee, 1998), but in a similar 2016 study, 71% of children were determined to be competent (Warren et al., 2016). When a juvenile is found IST, sometimes a judge may order restoration services for the adolescent, but these programs are uncommon (Stepanyan et al., 2015). In the 2016 study about restoring juveniles, the most common diagnosis was conduct disorder at 57%, followed by ADHD at 37% (Warren et al., 2016). Only 17% of these adolescents carried a psychotic diagnosis (Warren et al., 2016). 74% of adolescents with court-ordered restoration services had been charged with a felony offense (Warren et al., 2016). Of the juveniles ordered, 50% were restored to competence within 60 to 120 days of service, and 20% were restored after longer periods of time (Warren et al., 2016). These findings suggest not only that most juveniles who can be restored will be within a 3 or 4-month period, but that the rate at which juveniles can be restored is not all that different from adult defendants (Warren et al., 2016). The data also supported that restoration services can be provided to youth in the community with similar outcomes to inpatient hospitalization for adult defendants found IST (Warren et al., 2016). It is also worth mentioning that Warren et al.’s (2009) study noted youth are “possibly more proficient than adults in passing on information, particularly in detention settings” (Warren et al., 2009), in a way where they can supply other youths with information on what a competency assessment is, and the impact it can have on their sentencing outcome, should they be found IST (Warren et al., 2009). This may be another reason hospitalization is used sparingly when it comes to juveniles (Warren et al., 2009).
While adults were usually restored around 80-90% of the time (Warren et al., 2009), adolescents were restored only around 71% of the time (Warren et al., 2009). Researchers believe this is because of the higher rate of mental retardation among juveniles, as well as developmental and psychosocial immaturity aggregating the rate of IST in adolescents (Warren et al., 2009).
Implications of Being Found Incompetent to Stand Trial
In a study that looked at the similarities between adjudicative competence and Miranda Rights competence, several facets of both adults and juveniles were considered (Redlich, Silverman, & Steiner, 2003). Suggestibility and age were found to predict Miranda competence, while average school grades ad suggestibility predicted competence to stand trial (Redlich et al., 2003). The research concluded that participants who both understood and appreciated their Miranda rights were more likely to be found competent to stand trial (Redlich et al., 2003). The authors went on to suggest this could be an indicator of why juveniles were more likely to be found IST – more adolescents than adults considered the Miranda warning little more than a formality, rather than something put in place to protect them (Redlich et al., 2003). An appreciated and understood Miranda waiver is hardly an equivalent for an evaluation of CST, for either adolescents or juveniles, but the insinuation is daunting. If there are juveniles, or adults, who cannot or do not comprehend their Miranda rights, are they likely to be found competent to stand trial? Should a defendant already be considered incompetent, if unable to understand and appreciate their Miranda Rights?
While Miranda Rights are read to a defendant before a competency to stand trial evaluation, a plea bargain is often made after being found CST, or after restoration to competency. While competence is relevant in if a defendant has the ability to make voluntary, intelligent, and knowing decisions or not, the plea inquiry is relevant to whether a defendant actually made that decision (Redlich & Summers, 2012). Redlich and Summer’s (2012) study found that out of 99 adults, nearly every defendant who had claimed to have made an intelligent, knowing plead decision, comprehension of plea inquiry was on a whole poor (Redlich & Summers, 2012). Research already supports how juveniles already have a poor understanding of plea bargains (Sanborn, 2009); this study found that most juvenile defendants had insufficient levels of understanding when it came to plea inquiries. The study concluded with a theory that a large proportion of defendants, ones who were actually considered CST, might not actually understand and appreciate something like a plea bargain. Could a defendant truly be competent to stand trial, even if found CST in an evaluation, if they do not understand the charges they are agreeing to? Fortunately, there is some good news on educating to competency in this instance – in McKee’s (1998) study, all juveniles’ understanding of courtrooms and sentencing procedures increased after specific, group-based training (McKee, 1998).
References
Baerger, D. R., Griffin, E. F., Lyons, J. S., & Simmons, R. (2003). Competency to ___stand trial in preadjudicated and petitioned juvenile defendants. Journal of the ___American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 31, 314-320.
Baranoski, M. V. (2003). Commentary: Children’s minds and adult statutes. Journal ___of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 31, 321-326.
Dusky v. United States. 362 U.S. 402 (1961)
Grisso, T., Steinberg, L., Woolard, J., Cauffman, E., Scott, E., Graham, S., Lexen, F., ___& Schwartz, R. (2003). Juveniles’ competence to stand trial: A comparison of ___adolescents’ and adults’ capacities as trial defendants. Law and Human Behavior, ___27, 333-363. doi: 10.1023/A:1024065015717
Heilbrun, K., Hawk, G., & Tate, D. C. (1996). Juvenile competence to stand trial: ___Research issues in practice. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 573-578. doi: ___10.1007/BF01499043
Mayzer, R., Bradley, A. R., Rusinko, H., & Ertelt, T. W. (2009). Juvenile competency ___to stand trial in criminal court and brain function. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & ___Psychology, 20(6), 785-800. doi: 10.1080/14789940903174089
McKee, G. R. (1998). Competency to stand trial in preadjudicatory juveniles and ___adults. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 26, 89-99.
Pillay, A. L. (2014). Competency to stand trial and criminal responsibility ___examinations: Are there solutions to the extensive waiting list? South African ___Journal of Psychology, 44, 48-59. doi: 10.1177/0081246313516263
Redlich, A. D., Silverman, M., & Steiner, H. (2003). Pre-adjudicative and adjudicative ___competence in juveniles and young adults. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 21, ___393-410. doi: 10.1002/bsl.543
Redlich, A. D., & Summers, A. (2012). Voluntary, knowing, and intelligent pleas: ___Understanding the plea inquiry. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 18, 626-643. ___doi: 10.1037/a0026066
Romaine, C. R., Kemp, K., & DeMatteo, D. (2010). Evaluation of juvenile competency ___to proceed: Applying the Dusky standard. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, ___10, 1-12. doi: 10.1080/15228930903172973
Sanborn, J. B. (2009). Juveniles’ competency to stand trial: Wading through the ___rhetoric and the evidence. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 99, 138-___212.
Soulier, M. F., & Scott, C. L. (2010). Juveniles in court. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, ___18, 317-325. doi: 10.3109/10673229. 2010. 527518
Stepanyan, S. T., Sidhu, S. S., & Bath, E. (2015). Juvenile competency to stand trial. ___Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 25, 49-59. doi: ___10.1016/j.chc.2015.08.008
Warren, J. I., DuVaul, J., Komarovskaya, I., Chauhan, P., Bluffington-Vollum, J., & ___Ryan, E. (2009). Developing a forensic service delivery system for juveniles ___adjudicated incompetent to stand trial. International Journal of Forensic Mental ___Health, 8, 245-262. doi: 10.1080/14999011003635670
Warren, J. I., Jackson, S. L., & Jones Coburn, J. (2016). Evaluation and restoration of ___competency to stand trial. APA Handbook of Psychology and Juvenile Justice, 489-___514. doi: 10.1037/14643-023
Wobler, G. (2005). Review of Clinical evaluations for juveniles’ competence to stand ___trial: A guide for legal professionals. Journal of the American Academy of ___Psychiatry and the Law, 33(4), 556-560.
Zapf, P. A., & Roesch, R. (2011). Future directions in the restoration of competency ___to stand trial. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 43-47. doi: ___10.1177/0963721410396798