The legal presumption used in
virtually all juvenile delinquency cases in the U.S. is that all juveniles are
competent to stand trial. This Article calls for the elimination of that legal
presumption, which is historically based on the Dusky v. United States decision
and in the adult criminal justice system.
The recent decisions of the U.S.
Supreme Court recognize the developmental and organic brain differences between
adults and juveniles. Current research demonstrates a higher frequency rate of
incompetence based on intellectual deficiencies among children when compared
with adults found to be not legally competent to stand trial.
By eliminating
the competency presumption for juveniles in both delinquency and adult criminal
proceedings, the party seeking an adjudication would be responsible for
establishing that the accused juvenile is in fact, competent to stand trial.
Foreign jurisdictions in Europe, Asia, Africa, and South America have long
required higher thresholds--at least fourteen years of age--for holding
juveniles accountable for criminal misconduct, none of them presuming that
juveniles are competent to go to trial. In the alternative, by expanding the
factors currently in use for determination of juvenile competency by adding
developmental immaturity and mental illness, juvenile justice systems could
identify the reduction of recidivist offending as the primary systemic
objective.
Full PDF article at: http://goo.gl/XjgWw8
By: Katner DR1.
- 1Tulane Law School.
- Cornell J Law Public Policy. 2015 Spring;24(3):403-50.
More at: https://twitter.com/hiv insight
No comments:
Post a Comment