University of Federal Paraná week 10 written assignment

Juvenile Competency

The author of this response is supposed to find a study that focuses on competency to stand trial as it relates to juvenile offenders. The author is to summarize the study found for this response and is also asked to summarize how a forensic psychologist could process the study and use in their own daily routine and mindset. First, however, the author is asked to explain the use of forensic psychology research in court settings.

Precedent, best practices and laws on the books are usually the major source of policy and procedure as it relates to how court cases are administered and juvenile criminal courts are no different. The study selected for this response notes that many legal procedures used in juvenile court are imported from and are very similar to standard criminal court procedures. Just as with adult courts, procedures are used to ascertain whether a juvenile offender is in their right mind to stand trial. What makes the process and procedure sticky is that juveniles do not often face the same level of punishment as adult offenders and even when that hurdle is dealt with, the idea of whether a juvenile offender is competent to stand trial is not nearly as clear-cut as it is with an adult offender due to the fact that the minds and bodies of juvenile offenders are still in the process of developing and growing (Harvey, 2011).

The study starts off by noting that five percent of all adult cases end up including a competency hearing but no such statistic is readily available for juvenile offenders. Of the five or so percent adult trials that have a competency hearing, about one to three out of ten end up with the competency being compromised. The study also notes that having competency hearings for civil matters is a bit out of place given the civil rights afforded to adults that are not afforded to juveniles such as right to bail and the right to appeal (Harvey, 2011).

The forensic psychology sphere can use the competency of juvenile discussion in a number of ways. First, any competency hearing of a juvenile needs to take into account that the offender's mind is still forming and finalizing and it is not the same thing as assessing a person who is, for example forty years old. That being said, younger offenders do typically know right from wrong and it is possible in a clinical sense to determine whether the offender is able to defend himself or herself. The rub is that it has to be done in a specific way and in a way that is tangibly different than with typical adult offenders. After all, though, there is not a huge difference between assessing a 17-year-old and a 18-year-old and one of those two offenders is legally and criminally an adult.