Juvenile Offenders' Ability to Understand Their Legal

¶ … juvenile offenders' ability to understand their legal rights and one issue related to their ability to participate effectively in their own defense. Ability to understand legal rights: Competency Ability to participate effectively in their own defense: Treating juveniles differently According to U.S. criminal law, part of the right to counsel includes the notion that a defendant must be able to participate in his or her defense (Sandborn 2009: 137).

However, schizophrenics, persons with low IQ, and many other individuals who might seem otherwise unable to discern right from wrong have been found competent to assist in their own defense, even persons later found to be insane. The question of juvenile competency is particularly vexing given that juveniles have an innately 'different' status under the law.

The focus of the juvenile justice system is rehabilitation, and to a lesser extent, restitution, while the focus of the adult justice system is usually equal amounts retribution, rehabilitation, and restitution, and for some crimes there is a greater emphasis placed upon retribution. One of the most important questions is if competence should be determined in juvenile or adult terms. The states have contradictory policies on this matter.

For example, Arkansas law has found that defendants younger than age thirteen must be found capable of future-oriented thinking, logical decision, and able to evaluate the implications of moral behavior. Michigan and Iowa evaluate juvenile competency based upon juvenile rather than adult norms, which raises the question -- why are juveniles held to a lesser standard of competency than adults (Sandborn 2009: 141)? Almost by definition, a juvenile is less competent than an adult. This is why juveniles are treated differently than adults within the court system.

Is a 'competent' juvenile really so competent after all? Although it is claimed by Sandborn (2009) that little difference exists between juvenile perceptions of the legal system and adults because juveniles are able to understand concepts of 'judge' and 'jury,' this seems to ignore mounting scientific evidence that juvenile risk-taking and appreciation of consequences is biologically less acute than that of adults (Sandborn 2009: 157).

However, even if teens are seen as generally less competent than adults, the question remains if competency should be conceptualized as a continuum in the justice system, or if there should be a fundamentally different test of competency for both youth and adults, given that youths already have additional protections within the juvenile justice system thanks to its rehabilitative focus.

This notion of treating juveniles differently, but not more leniently than adults, is also reflected in the creation of youth courts, which try juveniles via a jury of their peers rather a trial by judge or an adult jury (Peterson n.d.).

While this sounds innovative and interesting (it assumes that there may be different peer group perceptions of the behavior not reflected in an adult's mindset), it is also potentially troubling that teens with admittedly limited life experience and lesser cognitive faculties are given the task of debating thorny legal questions like how much to penalize status offenses and the rehabilitative function of the juvenile justice system. The justice system is supposed to protect juveniles and this policy does not necessarily accomplish this objective.

Juveniles' ability to participate in their own defense is not necessarily enhanced by the format, and in fact might give a misperception of the lack of consequences of a court staffed with fellow teens. Another method of dealing with teen crime has been the adult-adjudicated yet special services provided by teen courts. Teen courts, for example, offer a kind of judicial halfway house to prevent first-time offenders from formally entering the system (Povitsky et al. 2008).

The different mental status, legal status, and different issues that pertain to teen crimes are all taken into consideration, and the primary goal is to prevent recidivism as well as rehabilitation. This seem a more equitable solution to the question of teens being able to truly, effectively participate in their defense like an adult. References Peterson, Scott. (n.d). Made in America. Reclaiming children and youth, 48-53 Povitsky, Wendy Stickle & Connell, Nadine M., Wilson, Denise M. & Gottfredson, Denise. (2008). An experimental evaluation of teen courts.

Journal of Experimental Criminology, 4:137 -- 163 Sandborn, Joseph. (2009). Juvenile's competency to stand trial. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 99 (1): 135. First Response: The student will analyze one of the issues related to juvenile offenders' ability to understanding their legal rights and one issue related to their ability to participate in their own defense. Introduction Most juveniles lack the ability to understand their legal rights because of their psychosocial maturity. This also affects their ability to participate in their own defense.

The Supreme Court has issued discrepant rulings in recent history regarding constitutional protections and adolescents' abilities as legal decision-makers. Cases such as "Parham v. J.R." show that the Supreme Court should be continually apprised of cases on behalf of juveniles. The " Parham v. J.R." outcome stated that "a child lacks the maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment required for making life's difficult decisions." Parents possess these skills. This is not completely true if you review some of the recent criminal cases in Illinois.

The Supreme Court has also ruled that juveniles do have sufficient capacity to make decisions regarding their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. There are several more cases that have laid the foundation for juveniles' understanding of their legal rights under the juvenile justice system. The cases.