Juvenile Law Commons^™

Unambiguous Deterrence: Ambiguity Attitudes In The Juvenile Justice System And The Case For A Right To Counsel During Intake Proceedings, Hannah Frank

Vanderbilt Law Review

According to the traditional rational choice theory of criminal behavior, people choose to commit crimes in a rational manner.' They weigh the costs and benefits and make informed decisions to maximize their utility. Under this framework, the state can deter crime through two main avenues: increasing the probability of detection and increasing the punishment if caught, both of which increase the total cost of committing a crime. Recently, however, behavioral insights have begun to cast doubt on traditional rationality assumptions. Lab experiments and empirical studies using real-world data have shown that people exhibit bounded rationality. For example, individuals have limited …

How Should Justice Policy Treat Young Offenders?, Owen D. Jones, B. J. Casey, Richard J. Bonnie, Et Al .

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

The justice system in the United States has long recognized that juvenile offenders are not the same as adults, and has tried to incorporate those differences into law and policy. But only in recent decades have behavioral scientists and neuroscientists, along with policymakers, looked rigorously at developmental differences, seeking answers to two overarching questions: Are young offenders, purely by virtue of their immaturity, different from older individuals who commit crimes? And, if they are, how should justice policy take this into account?

A growing body of research on adolescent development now confirms that teenagers are indeed inherently different from adults, …

Adolescent Brain Science After Graham V. Florida, Terry A. Maroney

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

In Graham v. Florida, the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits a sentence of life without possibility of parole for a non-homicide crime committed when the offender was under the age of eighteen. In an earlier Article, The False Promise of Adolescent Brain Science in Juvenile Justice, this author noted the pendency of Graham and its companion case, in which petitioners and their amici offered neuroscientific arguments closely paralleling those made by the defendant in Roper v. Simmons. Kennedy’s opinion in Graham clarified what his opinion in Roper had left ambiguous: the Court believes neuroscience relevant to general …

Juvenile Justice: The Fourth Option, Christopher Slobogin, Mark R. Fondacaro

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

The current eclectic mix of solutions to the juvenile-crime problem is insufficiently conceptualized and too beholden to myths about youth, the crimes they commit, and effective means of responding to their problems. The dominant punitive approach to juvenile justice, modeled on the adult criminal justice system, either ignores or misapplies current knowledge about the causes of juvenile crime and the means of reducing it. But the rehabilitative vision that motivated the progenitors of the juvenile court errs in the other direction, by allowing the state to assert its police power even over those who are innocent of crime. The most …

The False Promise Of Adolescent Brain Science In Juvenile Justice, Terry A. Maroney

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Recent scientific findings about the developing teen brain have both captured public attention and begun to percolate through legal theory and practice. Indeed, many believe that developmental neuroscience contributed to the U.S. Supreme Court’s elimination of the juvenile death penalty in Roper v. Simmons. Post-Roper, scholars assert that the developmentally normal attributes of the teen brain counsel differential treatment of young offenders, and advocates increasingly make such arguments before the courts. The success of any theory, though, depends in large part on implementation, and challenges that emerge through implementation illuminate problematic aspects of the theory. This Article tests the legal …

There's No Place Like Home: The Availability Of Judicial Review Over Certification Decisions Invoking Federal Jurisdiction Under The Juvenile Justice And Delinquency Prevention Act, Robert B. Mahini

Vanderbilt Law Review

During the latter half of the twentieth century, society's perception of juvenile delinquents changed dramatically.' Once fairly characterized as "immature kids who might get arrested for truancy, shoplifting or joy riding," juvenile offenders have recently earned reputations as vicious criminals regularly committing such serious offenses as robbery, rape, and murder.' This apparent trend toward increased violence has resulted in a "get tough" approach to federal juvenile justice policies.' Accordingly, Congress has expanded the federal government's ability to prosecute certain juvenile offenders by broadening the scope of federal jurisdiction.

The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, for example, authorizes federal prosecution …

A Prevention Model Of Juvenile Justice: The Promise Of Kansas V. Hendricks For Children, Christopher Slobogin, Mark R. Fondacaro, Jennifer L. Woolard

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

The traditional juvenile court, focused on rehabilitation and "childsaving," was premised primarily on a parens patriae notion of State power. " Because of juveniles' immaturity and greater treatability, this theory posited, the State could forego the substantive and procedural requirements associated with the adult system of criminal punishment. As an historical and conceptual matter, however, the parens patriae power justifies intervention only for the good of the subject, not for society as a whole. " From the outset, then, the image of the juvenile delinquency system as a manifestation of the State acting as "parent" was an implausible one. This …

Punishment And Juvenile Justice: A Conceptual Framework For Assessing Constitutional Rights Of Youthful Offenders, Martin R. Gardner

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Article attempts to provide an analytical framework for identifying the punitive aspects of the juvenile justice system. The Article proposes a framework that is extrapolated from Supreme Court cases which define punishment in contexts outside the juvenile area. Several commentators have criticized the Court's definitional efforts, some because of perceived inadequacies in the developed definitions, others because of the belief that the very enterprise of defining constitutional rights in terms of the presence or absence of punishment is misguided . Although many of these criticisms of the Court's record are understandable, the alleged defects are less detrimental to an …