The requirement that juveniles be competent to stand trial prior to adjudication in juvenile court has only recently been solidified via case law and/or statutory law. It is currently unclear as to whether and how the presence of a specific juvenile competency to stand trial (CST) statute affects how court actors understand and make use of CST in a juvenile court context. Through interviews with 48 juvenile court officials across two states and three juvenile court jurisdictions, we find that the presence or absence of specific juvenile CST guidelines differentially shapes court officials’ perceptions of the legitimacy of CST concerns and consequently, their case processing strategies and decisions. This exploratory study serves to critically question the role of this new due process protection in a juvenile court context that presumes youthfulness or immaturity of offenders.
BickmanL.RogD. J. (1998). Handbook of applied social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
2.
BishopD. M.FrazierC. E. (1996). Race effects in juvenile justice decision-making: Findings of a statewide analysis. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86, 392-415.
3.
BortnerM. A. (1982). Inside a juvenile court: The tarnished ideal of individualized justice. New York: New York University Press.
4.
BridgesG. S.SteenS. (1998). Racial disparities in official assessments of juvenile offenders: Attributional stereotypes as mediating mechanisms. American Sociological Review, 63, 554-570.
5.
BulmerM. (1979). Concepts in the analysis of qualitative date. Sociological Review, 27, 651-677.
6.
EisensteinJ.FlemmingR. B.NardulliP. F. (1988). The contours of justice: Communities and their courts. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
7.
EisensteinJ.JacobH. (1977). Felony justice: An organizational analysis of criminal courts. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
8.
EmersonR. W. (1969). Judging delinquents: Context and process in juvenile court. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
9.
EngenR. L.SteenS.BridgesG. S. (2002). Racial disparities in the punishment of youth: A theoretical and empirical assessment of the literature. Social Problems, 49, 194-220.
10.
EvansT. M. (2003). Juvenile competency to stand trial: Problems and pitfalls. Criminal Justice Abstracts, 21(2), 5-18.
11.
FaganJ. (2002). This will hurt me more than it hurts you: Social and legal consequences of criminalizing delinquency. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy, 16, 1-41.
12.
FeldB. (1999). Bad kids: Race and the transformation of juvenile court. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
13.
FerdinandT. N. (1991). History overtakes the juvenile justice system. Crime & Delinquency, 37, 204-224.
14.
FrostL. E.VolenikA. E. (2004). The ethical perils of representing the juvenile defendant who may be incompetent. Journal of Law and Policy, 14, 327-358.
15.
GaarderE.RodriguezN.ZatzM. S. (2004). Criers, liars, and manipulators: Probation officers’ views of girls. Justice Quarterly, 21, 547-578.
16.
GhettiS.RedlichA. D. (2001). Reactions to youth crime: Perceptions of accountability and competence. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 19, 33-52.
17.
GrissoT.SteinbergL.WoolardJ.CauffmanE.ScottE.GrahamS.. . . SchwartzR. (2003). Juveniles’ competence to stand trial: A comparison of adolescents’ and adults’ capacities as trial defendants. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 333-363.
18.
HarrisA. (2007). Diverting and abdicating judicial discretion: Cultural, political, and procedural dynamics in California juvenile justice. Law & Society Review, 41, 387-428.
19.
JohnsonK. M. (2006). Juvenile competency statutes: A model for state legislation. Indiana Law Journal, 81, 1067-1095.
20.
KruhI. P.SullivanL.EllisM.LexcenF.McClellanJ. (2006). Juvenile competence to stand trial: A historical and empirical analysis of a juvenile forensic evaluation service. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 5, 109-123.
21.
KupchikA. (2003). Prosecuting adolescents in criminal courts: Criminal or juvenile justice. Social Problems, 50, 439-460.
22.
KupchikA. (2006). Judging juveniles: Prosecuting adolescents in adult and juvenile courts. New York: New York University Press.
23.
LeiberM. J. (2003). The contexts of juvenile justice decision making: When race matters. Albany: State University of New York Press.
24.
LyleV. K. (2003). Emotional maturity and trial competence in urban male adolescents. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 64(2-B), 1498.
25.
LynottP. P.LogueB. J. (1993). The “hurried child”: The myth of lost childhood in contemporary American society. Sociological Forum, 8, 471-491.
26.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
27.
MyersM. A.TalaricoS. M. (1986). The social contexts of racial discrimination in sentencing. Social Problems, 33, 236-251.
28.
PlattA. (1977). The child savers: The invention of delinquency (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
29.
ReddingR. E.FrostL. E. (2002). Adjudicative competence in the modern juvenile court. Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law, 9, 353-410.
30.
RedlichA. D.SilvermanM.SteinerH. (2003). Pre-adjudicative and adjudicative competence in juveniles and young adults. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 21, 393-410.
31.
RodriguezN.SmithH.ZatzM. S. (2009). Exploring the relationship among dysfunctional families, parental incarceration and juvenile court decision making. Criminology, 47, 177-208.
32.
RothmanD. J. (1980). Conscience and convenience: The asylum and its alternative in progressive America. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
33.
RyanG. W.BernardH. R. (2000). The handbook of qualitative research. In DenzenN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Data management and analysis methods (2nd ed., pp. 769-802). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
34.
SanbornJ. B. (2009). Juveniles’ competency to stand trial: Wading through the rhetoric and the evidence. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 99, 135-213.
35.
SavelsbergJ. J. (1992). Law that does not fit society: Sentencing guidelines as a neoclassical reaction to the dilemmas of substantivized law. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 1346-1381.
36.
SchlossmanS. L. (1977). Love and the American delinquent: The theory and practice of progressive juvenile justice, 1825-1920. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
37.
ScottE. S.GrissoT. (1998). The evolution of adolescence: A developmental perspective on juvenile justice reform. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 88, 137-189.
38.
ScottE. S.GrissoT. (2005). Developmental incompetence, due process, and juvenile justice policy. North Carolina Law Review, 83, 793-827.
39.
ShankG.VillellaO. (2004). Building on new foundations: Core principles and new directions for qualitative research. The Journal of Educational Research, 98, 46-55.
40.
SingerS. I. (1996). Recriminalizing delinquency: Violent juvenile crime and juvenile justice reform. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
41.
StapletonV.AdayD. P.Jr.ItoJ. A. (1982). An empirical typology of American metropolitan juvenile courts. American Journal of Sociology, 88, 549-564.
42.
SudnowD. (1965). Normal crimes: Sociological features of the penal code in a public defender office. Social Problems, 12, 255-276.
43.
SuttonJ. R. (1988). Stubborn children: Controlling delinquency in the United States. Berkeley: University of California Press.
44.
UlmerJ. T. (1997). Social worlds of sentencing: Court communities under sentencing guidelines. Albany. State University of New York Press.
45.
UlmerJ. T.KramerJ. H. (1996). Court communities under sentencing guidelines: Dilemmas of formal rationality and sentencing disparity. Criminology, 34, 383-407.
46.
ViljoenJ. L.GrissoT. (2007). Prospects for remediating juveniles’ adjudicative incompetence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 13, 87-114.
47.
WestonC.GandellT.BeauchampJ.McAlpineL.WisemanC.BeauchampC. (2001). Analyzing interview data: The development and evolution of a coding system. Qualitative Sociology, 24, 381-400.
48.
ZimringF. E. (1981). The changing legal world of adolescence. New York, NY: Free Press.
49.
A.R.S. § 8–291 (2010).
50.
Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 402 (1975).
51.
Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 401 (1960).
52.
In re Bailey, 150 Ohio App.3d 664, 2002-Ohio-6792.
53.
In re Gault v. U.S., 87 S.Ct. 1428 (1967).
54.
In re Hyrum H.; In re Jacob H., 212 Ariz. 328; 131 P.3d 1058; 2006 Ariz. App. LEXIS 30.
