Law Commons^™

Is Executive Function The Universal Acid?, Stephen J. Morse

All Faculty Scholarship

This essay responds to Hirstein, Sifferd and Fagan’s book, Responsible Brains (MIT Press, 2018), which claims that executive function is the guiding mechanism that supports both responsible agency and the necessity for some excuses. In contrast, I suggest that executive function is not the universal acid and the neuroscience at present contributes almost nothing to the necessary psychological level of explanation and analysis. To the extent neuroscience can be useful, it is virtually entirely dependent on well-validated psychology to correlate with the neuroscientific variables under investigation. The essay considers what executive function is and what the neuroscience adds to our …

How Should Justice Policy Treat Young Offenders?, B J. Casey, Richard J. Bonnie, Andre Davis, David L. Faigman, Morris B. Hoffman, Owen D. Jones, Read Montague, Stephen J. Morse, Marcus E. Raichle, Jennifer A. Richeson, Elizabeth S. Scott, Laurence Steinberg, Kim A. Taylor-Thompson, Anthony D. Wagner

All Faculty Scholarship

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, …

We Don’T Always Mean What We Say: Attitudes Toward Statutory Exclusion Of Juvenile Offenders From Juvenile Court Jurisdiction, Tina Zotolli, Tarika Daftary Kapur, Patricia A. Zapf

Department of Justice Studies Faculty Scholarship and Creative Works

In the United States, juvenile offenders are often excluded from the jurisdiction of the juvenile court on the basis of age and crime type alone. Data from national surveys and data from psycholegal research on support for adult sanction of juvenile offenders are often at odds. The ways in which questions are asked and the level of detail provided to respondents and research participants may influence expressed opinions. Respondents may also be more likely to agree with harsh sanctions when they have fewer offender- and case-specific details to consider. Here, we test the hypothesis that attitudes supporting statutory exclusion laws …

Predicting Death In Young Offenders: A Retrospective Cohort Study, Carolyn Coffey, Rory Wolfe, Andrew W. Lovett, Paul Moran, Eileen Cini, George C. Patton

Aboriginal Policy Research Consortium International (APRCi)

Objective: To examine predictors of death in young offenders who have received a custodial sentence using data routinely collected by juvenile justice services.

Design: A retrospective cohort of 2849 (2625 male) 11–20-year-olds receiving their first custodial sentence between 1 January 1988 and 31 December 1999 was identified. Main outcome measures: Deaths, date and primary cause of death ascertained from study commencement to 1 March 2003 by data-matching with the National Death Index; measures comprising year of and age at admission, sex, offence profile, any drug offence, multiple admissions and ethnic and Indigenous status, obtained from departmental records.

Results: Theoverallmortalityratewas7.2deathsper1000person-yearsofobservation. Younger …

Punishment Or Treatment For Adolescent Offenders: Therapeutic Integrity And The Paradoxical Effects Of Punishment, Jeffrey A. Fagan

Faculty Scholarship

Throughout much of its history, the American juvenile court maintained a goal of rehabilitation of the individual, and placed custody and punishment as secondary or ancillary goals in the pursuit of "remaking the child's character and lifestyle." To its founders, the development of a separate juvenile court reflected a fundamental distinction between sanctions based on characteristics of the offender, and punishment based on the offense. Juvenile court dispositions were designed to determine why the child was in court, and what could be done to avoid future appearances. Judge Julian Mack's classic statement of the original theory of the juvenile court …