An individual’s psychological maturity is an imperative factor in understanding an adolescent’s decision-making process. For years, mental health specialists and judicial decision makers have worked hard on defining youth’s cognitive and emotional capacities that influence their behavior. If researchers could pin point the key elements that would be a huge step forward in understanding why juveniles act the way they do. Kelly, Miller, Redlich, Kleinman, and Lamb, in their journal article, “A Taxonomy of Interrogation Methods,” define taxonomy as “the science of classification, organizes what is known about a phenomenon in such a fashion that is accessible and sensible to consumers of the information… it systemizes established observations that …show more content…
“This theory postulates that the gap between social/emotional maturity, and greater affiliation with other delinquent peers via social mimicry” (Cruise et al., 2008). This theory also focuses on the neurodevelopmental characteristics and progression within the lives of adolescent’s. As mentioned before, Cruise, Fernandez, McCoy, Guy, Colwell, and Douglas, quote Cauffman and Steinberg stating, “‘this growing body of research has brought up both the developmental theoretical framework, and operationalization of that framework, to examine adolescents’ specific developmental capacities deemed crucial to participation in the legal processes’ (Cauffman & Steinberg, 1995),” (Cruise et al., 2008). Meaning that there must be an understanding during the juvenile interrogation and the juvenile justice system, that adolescent’s are cognitively different than adults. The combination of cognitive, social, and emotional factors influence the “maturity of judgment” through age-related factors that differentiate an adolescent’s decision-making from that of an …show more content…
Cruise and his colleague’s state, “These findings are an important reminder that the full range of developmental capacities warrants consideration when tailoring judicial and legislative policy responses for juvenile offenders” (Cruise et al., 2008). Overall, the taxonomic theory and structure are lacking within the interrogation process. If the findings within the taxonomic theory and structure were applied within the interrogation process, then the issue of a child’s Miranda rights being disregarded would not be one of the biggest issues within adolescent interrogations. The developments of taxonomy within interrogation methods are a scientific advancement, which have been proven to be incremental. If we fully understand and apply the taxonomic theory and methods into everyday interrogations, it will help diminish the issue of law enforcement officers taking advantage of juveniles who do not fully understanding their Miranda rights. This research proposal could also act as a beneficial safeguard in protecting adolescents’ and their rights during
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
In “Startling Finds on Teenage Brains,” Paul Thompson--a neuroscientist at UCLA--argues that minors should not be sentenced as adults because their brains are not the same as adults’ brains. Even though Thompson believes that minors should be held accountable for their crimes, he presents evidence from recent studies to explain the differences between the brains of minors and adults. It is not surprising that Thompson uses logical evidence to defend his position, given that he is a scientist. However, Thompson frequently uses emotional persuasion--or pathos--to convince his readers that sentencing minors as adults is both unjust and uninformed. Through his use of structure and emotionally charged language, Thompson attempts to convince readers
The federal government’s “War on Crime” by the Johnson administration in the 60s made way for tougher law enforcement and surveillance (Hinton, 2015). However, with this came the separation of children and adults in the criminal justice system; then the separation of juvenile delinquents from status offenders. As mentioned, status offenders are different from juvenile delinquents because they had broken rules which apply to only children. Meanwhile, juvenile delinquents are youths under the age of 18, who committed offenses that would be punishable to adults as well. By the late 1960s, there became a growing concern that juveniles involved in the court-based status-offense system, were not getting their best interests met (Shubik & Kendall, 2007).
The Juveniles are kids not adults and that they don’t have the same brain development as adults do. In the article, “Starting finds on Teenage Brains” by Paul Thompson saying that during this time of period in teenagers be having massive loss of brain tissue. It is believed that the massive brain loss tissue supports all teens thinking and emotions. It also says, “Brain cells and connections are only being lost in areas controlling impulses, risk taking and self control.”
In “Juvenile Mediation Cuts Repeat Offenses”, associate Professor Donna Decker at the University of New Haven contends that if a juvenile faces the consequences of their actions, they are less likely to commit another crime. She stated that the juveniles did not realize that their actions could result in consequences thus making it much easier to commit crimes. In an effort to support this statement, Morris conducted a study on the juvenile offenders in Bridgeport. “She utilized the results from mediations conducted by the Dispute Settlement Center between 2005 and 2006” (Cuda, 2010). The program which started in the year 2005 allows juvenile offenders to get their case dropped, but they must face the consequences of their actions by engaging in conversation with the victim.
It can be argued that trying juveniles as adults doesn’t take into consideration the maturity or the development of the individual (Regoli, 2019). When we look at an individual's development, it’s important to consider both adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and the bioecological system. Youth’s development is dependent on the environment in which they are raised and grow. This is why we also consider Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological systems theory. Factors such as an individual’s school, family, friends, or community all contribute to the individual’s development.
Developmental theories look at how offenders start and end their criminal behaviors. All developmental theories, including the two focused on in this paper, pull from social, psychological, and biological factors to find answers. Both of these theories follow along a trajectory or pathway for offenders. Sampson and Laub’s age-graded theory has offenders following along two possible trajectories. They can either follow along the high risk trajectory or the low risk trajectory.
There are many children in the world who are being put behind bars and detained for alleged wrongdoing without protections they are entitled to. Throughout the world, children are charged and sentenced for actions that should not be considered as adult crimes. Here in the United States, the minimum age of criminal responsibility is age 12. Law enforcement officials and those in the juvenile justice system nationwide tend to mistreat underage individuals by trying cases while working through the lens of an adult. Unfair punishments are still handed down domestically, which is in violation of Supreme Court law.
Adolescent minds are the most intelligent kind of mind. A young brain is filled with creativity, imagination and innocence. Though the thought process of a teen is assumed to be selfish there are other factors involved. A combination of these characteristics seems almost dangerous. One would undermine a juvenile to use these qualities to manipulate the court for their own selfish wishes or pleasures.
In Gail Garinger’s, “Juveniles Don’t Deserve Life Sentences,” she argues that juveniles have great potential in being able to change their lives for the better. Garinger starts off with the superpredator theory which involves kids who will commit crimes in groups, and in response, laws were made to easily try kids as adults in court. Even with the superpredator prediction never coming true, the laws that were made still exist. Garinger then moves on to describing how teens are different than adults in many different aspects. Garinger states, “As a former juvenile court judge, I have seen first hand the enormous capacity of children to change and turn themselves around” (Garinger par.
Within the urban communities, negative perceptions are magnified. Adolescents are more prone to be a product of their environment, especially those whose parents are incarcerated. Because of this trend adolescents are being incarcerated at an alarming rate and sentenced to adult facilities. Lambie & Randall (2013) states, the United States have imposed harsher penalties on serious young offenders, and have consequently increased rates of incarcerated youth and made it easier for youth to be treated and incarcerated as adults within the justice
It is debated that juveniles are committing more serious and violent crimes because the youth think they can get off easy and take advantage of the system put in place. Those in favor of youth offenders being tried as adults believe that as juveniles are punished to the full extent of the law, future youth offender will think twice before committing a criminal act. In support of this, seventy-five percent of the transferred juveniles interviewed by Redding and Fuller (2004) felt that their experiences in the adult criminal justice system had taught them the serious consequences of committing crimes. As one juvenile explained, “[Being tried as an adult] showed me it’s not a game anymore. Before, I thought that since I’m a juvenile I could do just about anything and just get 6 months if I got
There are 3 levels and 6 stages in which a person can achieve throughout their lifetime. According to Kohlberg, most people advance to stage 4 which is termed law and order orientation, but many do not advance part this stage. This stage is a period of moral development in which one develops an interest in laws, codes, and commandments and a greater respect for authority (Arrigo, 2012, p. 124). This stage of moral development is relevant to everyone and can help us better understand as to why younger people commit criminal acts. Many juveniles will not reach this stage until they are between the ages of 16-20 years old.
He describes the adolescent years as a time when we are most immature during our thinking processes. Because of this, teenagers are more argumentative due to underdeveloped reasoning abilities. They believe they are invincible and take risks. (Psychosocial Development Theory) Erik Erikson’s theory of Psychosocial Development may also provide an interesting explanation for the prevalence of teenagers in gangs.
Overall, law enforcement is not adequately trained in interviewing and interrogating juveniles. While there are numerous courses available in forensic interviewing of children who may be victims, there are few training courses that target interrogative techniques for interviewing and interrogating youth who may be suspects or witnesses. Interview and interrogation is a standard training for law enforcement agencies, however, it typically does not cover the developmental deviations between adults and youth, nor does it cover recommended techniques that should be used with youth versus adults. This often leads law enforcement officials to use the same techniques on youth as with adults. Because of this, juveniles are more vulnerable to the pressures of the interrogation, which can cause them to give involuntary or even false confessions.