RESEARCH ARTICLEJuvenile competency to stand trial in crim.docx

RESEARCH ARTICLE
Juvenile competency to stand trial in criminal court and brain
function
Roni Mayzer
a
*, April R. Bradley
b
, Holly Rusinko
b
and Troy W. Ertelt
b
a
Department of Criminal Justice, University of North Dakota,
Grand Forks, USA;
b
Department of Psychology, University of North Dakota, Grand
Forks, USA
(Received 19 September 2008; final version received 21 May
2009)
Current estimates indicate that approximately 200,000 juveniles
are
transferred to the (adult) criminal court system each year and it
is often

required that the juvenile’s ability to function in adult criminal
proceedings be assessed by a mental health professional. We
review
the literature on the assessment of juvenile competency to stand
trial in
criminal court, adolescent brain development, and related
cognitive
skills. We conclude that integrative developmental theories are
needed
to guide research and provide theoretical pathways to apply
neuropsy-
chological information to juvenile competency behaviors and
the
assessment of these behaviors.
Keywords: adolescence; cognitive functioning; criminal
procedure;
developmental; forensic
Over the past decade an increasing number of juvenile offenders
have been
moved to the American (adult) criminal court system (Snyder &
Sickmund,
1999). While it is difficult to assess the exact number of
transferred children
and adolescents, the best available estimates suggest around
200,000 cases
annually (American Bar Association Criminal Justice Section,
2001).
Unfortunately, research indicates poorer outcomes (i.e., higher
re-arrest
rates) for those moved to criminal court compared to those who
remain in
juvenile court (MacArthur Foundation Research Network,
2006). This has
led to questions about juveniles’ competency to participate in

the trial
process in an adult setting. How much do competence-related
abilities
depend on developmental maturity in cognitive, social, and
underlying
neurological domains? An appreciation of the extent to which
juvenile
offenders demonstrate competence-related abilities is crucial in
order to
engage in a criminal justice process free from coercion and to
design policies
for the adjudication of juveniles appropriate to their
developmental level
(Melton, Petrila, Poythress, & Slobogin, 1997).
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology
Vol. 20, No. 6, December 2009, 785–800
ISSN 1478-9949 print/ISSN 1478-9957 online
� 2009 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/14789940903174089
http://www.informaworld.com
Increasingly, the field of criminology has also recognized the
importance
of developmental perspectives for understanding the etiology of
crime and
delinquency. Key theorists (e.g., Moffitt, 1993) have proposed
explanations
for life-course-persistent offending which implicate
neuropsychological

impairments in executive and verbal functions. However,
relatively few
studies have included neuropsychological assessments, and
brain imaging
technology has yet to be incorporated into these theory-testing
endeavors.
Do juvenile offenders actually have neurological and
psychosocial deficits
compared to juvenile non-offenders? If so, do these deficits
persist over time
or simply represent delayed rates of maturation? The answer to
these
questions would better inform prevention and intervention
efforts designed
to mitigate involvement in crime and associated risk behaviors
which are
detrimental to health and/or social well-being (e.g., drinking,
reckless
driving, etc.).
Several bodies of literature are relevant to these issues,
covering topics
associated with adjudicative competency; neuropsychological
and neuro-
imaging research on adolescent brain development; and its
relationships
with psychopathology, antisocial behavior, and substance use.
Research
findings suggest that competency is contingent on certain
cognitive skills
which are tied to brain functions that mature over the
developmental course
from childhood through adolescence, into early adulthood.
Unfortunately,
the existing neuropsychological literature is not yet well
integrated into

discussions about juvenile adjudicative competency.
Juvenile adjudicative competency
In the United States, to be considered competent to stand trial in
criminal
court, a defendant must be capable of understanding the charges
against
him or her, be able to consult with his/her attorney, and
understand and
participate in legal proceedings (Dusky v. United States, 1960).
More narrow
criteria for proceeding with trial are utilized by other countries
such as
England (Mackay, 2007) and Canada (O’Shaughnessy, 2007).
When any of these competence criteria are applied to juveniles,
developmental immaturity becomes a complicating factor.
Cognitive and
psychosocial skills are still developing throughout adolescence.
Conse-
quently, many juveniles show broad deficits in understanding
and decision-
making (Grisso et al., 2003; Viljoen & Roesch, 2005). Along
with normal
developmental immaturity, many disorders may interfere with
an adoles-
cent’s ability to fully meet competency criteria in ways
different from adults.
These include deficits associated with attention (e.g., ADHD),
anxiety, and
learning (Grisso, 2005) as well as schizophrenia, bipolar
disorder,
depression, and conduct disorder (Lexcen, 2000).
The American Academy of Psychiatry and Law (AAPL) has

recom-
mended practice guidelines for evaluations of adjudicative
competence
786 R. Mayzer et al.
(Mossman et al., 2007). Despite these guidelines, survey studies
conducted
by Ryba, Cooper, and Zapf (2003a, 2003b) indicate that
methods used in
competency assessments vary widely across mental health
professionals.
However, while methods may vary, most evaluators assess
similar constructs
including current mental status, understanding of charges,
understanding of
trial procedures, ability to utilize attorney’s services, medical
history, mental
illness history, retardation, emotional immaturity, and self
control. (Formal
evaluation methods used in adjudicative competency
assessments are listed
in Table 1).
Before moving on, it is worth emphasizing that considerations
of
competence and developmental immaturity are also relevant to
other stages
of the criminal justice process, not just court proceedings. As
previously
mentioned, decisions about important choices such as
confessing or
accepting a deal in exchange for pleading guilty vary by age
(Grisso et al.,

2003). One particular concern associated with the potential for
adverse
outcomes is the provision of false confession by innocent
individuals under
interrogative pressure from law enforcement officers (see
Gudjonsson, 2003).
False confessions are disproportionately prevalent at younger
ages (Drizin &
Leo, 2004). One reason for these age-related disparities is that
juveniles are
especially susceptible to suggestive questioning, criticism or
negative
feedback, interrogative pressure from authority figures, and use
of
deceptions such claiming to have evidence that does not
actually exist
(Gudjonsson, 2003; Redlich & Goodman, 2003; Scott-Hayward,
2007).
Juveniles may also place greater weight on short-term rewards
(e.g., release)
over the ultimately more profound, long-term consequences of
pleading
guilty (Scott-Hayward, 2007). Despite the relevancy of
developmental status
to fairness and accuracy concerns during interrogation and other
interac-
tions with the police – including recognition of differences
between children,
youth, and adults by law enforcement personnel – different
procedures for
use with juveniles are often neither used nor recognized as
necessary (Meyer
& Reppucci, 2007).
Neuropsychological studies on adolescent brain development

While there are strong theoretical arguments to support the use
of pre-trial
competency assessments, there are currently very few studies
that examine
the correlations between competency and neuropsychological
performance.
Yet it is not surprising that adolescents demonstrate poorer
competence-
related and psychosocial skills on court-related assessment
tools, given that
there are more general and robust neuropsychological substrates
to these
capacities. In particular, early adolescents have not achieved
higher order
executive functions that assist in cognitive efficiency.
Executive functioning is an umbrella term that encompasses a
number of
interrelated sub-skills that may follow different developmental
trajectories
The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology 787
Table 1. Standardized and normed test instruments used in
adjudicative
competency assessments.
Assessment area Commonly used test(s) Age range
Achievement (verbal
and mathematical
reasoning)
NEPSY-II 3–16

California Verbal Learning Test –
Children’s Version (CVLT-C)*
5–16
Wide Range Achievement Test – 3
(WRAT-3)
5–75
Wechsler Individual Achievement Test –
II (WIAT-II)*
4–85
Executive
functioning/
neuropsychological
tests
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children
(WISC-IV)*
6–16
Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test
(K-BIT)*
4–90
NEPSY-II 3–16
Children’s Category Test (CCT) 5–16
Wisconsin Card Sort Test (WCST)* 6.5–89
Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Test II* 3–85
Controlled Oral Word Association Test 7þ
Delis-Kaplan Executive Functioning

System
8–89
Tower of London 2nd Edition (TOL) 7þ
Trail Making Tests A and B 7þ
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – III
(WAIS-III)*
16–90
Inattention/impulse
control
Conners 3 Parent/Teacher Report 6–17
Conners 3 Self Report 8–17
Conner’s Continuous Performance
Test-II (CPT-II)
6þ
Test of Everyday Attention for Children
(TEA-Ch)
6–16
Behavior problems Child Behavior CheckList – Parent
Report*
2–17
Child Behavior CheckList – Youth Self
Report*
11–18

Memory California Verbal Learning Test –
Children’s Version (CVLT-C)*
5–16
Children’s Memory Scale (CMS) 5–16
Weschler Memory Scales – III
(WMS-III)*
16–89
Rivermead Behavioral Memory Test 16–96
Adjudicative
competency
MacArthur Competence Assessment
Tool – Criminal Adjudication
(MacCAT-CA)*
Adolescent-adult
Fitness Interview Test – Revised* Adolescent-adult
Competence Screening Test (CST)* Adolescent-adult
Competency Assessment for Standing
Trial for Defendants with Mental
Retardation (CAST-MR)*
Adolescent-adult
(continued)
(Huizinga, Dolan, & van der Molen, 2006). Executive

functioning is
demonstrated when an individual engages in goal-directed
behaviors such as
planning, organizing, strategizing, paying attention to details,
thinking
abstractly, and adapting to novel situations. There is a broad
range of tests
available to measure executive functioning but research in
relation to age
differences and hierarchical development is lacking, especially
across
component domains (Huizinga et al., 2006).
Anderson, Anderson, Northam, Jacobs, and Catroppa (2001)
found a
linear improvement in certain executive function tasks but not
others across
individuals of ages 11–17. Tasks that improved from childhood
through
adolescence included selective attention, working memory and
problem
solving (Anderson et al., 2001). Huizinga et al. (2006) found
that adult levels
of performance on some attention shifting, working memory,
inhibition,
and complexity tasks were not reached until the age of 15 years
with still
others continuing to improve into young adulthood. De Luca et
al. (2003)
found improvements in working memory, planning, and problem
solving at
least through ages 15–19 and peaking between 20 and 29 years.
In a meta-
analysis of studies on the topic published between 1984 and
2004, Romine
and Reynolds (2005) concluded that improvements in executive

perfor-
mance are particularly striking between five and 11 years of
age, with
smaller increases between ages 11 and 14 and thereafter.
Changes continued,
Table 1. (Continued).
Assessment area Commonly used test(s) Age range
Competence to Stand Trial Assessment
Instrument (CAI)*
Adolescent-adult
Psychopathology/
personality
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory – Adolescent (MMPI-A)*
14–18
Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory
(MACI)*
13–19
Millon Pre-Adolescent Clinical
Inventory (M-PACI)
9–12
Rorschach Inkblot Test* All ages
Thematic Apperception Test (TAT)* All ages
Rotter Incomplete Sentences Blank

(RISB)*
High school-adult
Emotional
competence
BarOn Emotional Quotient Inventory
(BarOn EQ-i)
13þ
Psychopathy Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Youth
Version (PCL:YV)
12–18
Suggestibility Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale (GSS) 12þ
Malingering Paulhus Deception Scales (PDS) 16þ
Victoria Symptom Validity Test (VSVT) 16þ
Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) 16–84
Note: Tests listed by respondents to the Ryba, Cooper, and Zapf
(2003b) survey are noted
with a*.
albeit at a decreased rate, into early adulthood – especially for
higher level
skills such as planning and verbal fluency (Romine & Reynolds,
2005).

Development of the ability to debate pros and cons, the ability
to weigh
long-term and short-term consequences of one’s decisions, and
abstract
thinking are especially relevant to juvenile adjudicative
competency.
Although older adolescents begin to perform more similarly to
adults on
a number of cognitive tasks, they may still make decisions that
vary from
adults’ due to social/emotional immaturity (Grisso, 2005;
Steinberg & Scott,
2003). Adolescents are poorer evaluators of risk (e.g., assigning
different
weights to risks in decision-making), have a limited time
perspective (e.g.,
focusing primarily on short-term consequences), and lack self-
directedness
(e.g., they may rely on others and be unduly influenced by peer,
parents, or
authority figures) (Ryba et al., 2003a; Steinberg & Scott, 2003).
There are also neurological and cognitive underpinnings to
competencies
at other stages of the criminal justice process. For example,
suggestibility-to-
interrogative pressure has been linked to individual differences
associated
with memory processes that can be traced to brain functioning
in specific
cortical areas (Howard & Chaiwutikornwanich, 2006). With
respect to the
phenomenon of falsely confessing to a crime one did not
commit, some
individuals may be more vulnerable to distrusting their own
recollections

and accepting others’ suggestions (e.g., memory distrust
syndrome;
Gudjonsson, 2003).
It is important to note that although age is a convenient marker
when
assessing development, research on many aspects of brain
development have
been linked to puberty – including tasks associated with
executive
functioning (McGivern, Andersen, Byrd, Mutter, & Reilly,
2002). Yet
much of the extant research on cognitive development has
strictly focused on
the participants’ ages. Starting in the 1980s, researchers began
examining
how sex hormones affect cognitive development during
adolescence,
especially during puberty. Pubertal stages are not direct
measurements of
hormone levels in adolescents, but the different stages of
pubertal
development depend on varying levels of sex hormone
secretion. Multiple
animal studies have evaluated the impact of gonadal hormones
on the brain
and behavior (e.g., Novak, Parfit, Sisk, & Smale, 2007; Schulz
et al., 2004)
but fewer have assessed such pubertal effects in humans (Sisk &
Zehr, 2005).
During adolescence, gonadal hormones sculpt and organize the
nervous
system along with other brain restructuring processes. Changes
in density of
gray matter correspond with the onset of puberty, occurring
later in boys

than girls (Sisk & Zehr, 2005). Pathways that regulate mood and
frontal lobe
functioning (i.e., serotonergic, dopaminergic, and noradrenergic
systems) are
influenced by gonadal hormone increases associated with
puberty (Cameron,
2004). These changes have been associated with later
psychopathology
(Walker, Sabuwalla, & Hout, 2004). The effects of puberty
onset and
corresponding increase of gonadal hormones are significant but
there is
evidence that brain changes also occur through independent
processes during
adolescence, further complicating the picture (Sisk & Foster,
2004).
Davies and Rose (1999) considered pubertal stages when
examining
differences in cognitive abilities charted across adolescence.
There were
minimal differences between male and female adolescents on
tests of
cognitive abilities, with males exhibiting superior performance
in the few
areas that sex differences were observed on tasks that required
the frontal
and parietal lobes (Davies & Rose, 1999). The discrepancies
between male
and female scores occurred most often between the pre-pubertal
and

pubertal stages, with minimal to no differences in the post-
pubertal stage
(Davies & Rose, 1999). This finding supports the idea that
assessing the
pubertal development of the child is crucial for obtaining an
accurate
measure of the adolescent’s cognitive abilities. Males and
females do not
develop all that differently, cognitively, when they are assessed
at the same
pubertal stage. These findings have special bearing on
competency
assessments, given the fact that males typically go through the
pubertal
stages at a later chronological age than their female peers.
Neuroimaging studies on adolescent brain development
Research indicates that the cerebral cortex undergoes changes
throughout
puberty and adolescence that coincide with changes in cognitive
ability and
executive functioning (Gibson, 1991; Goldman-Rakic, 1987;
Huttenlocher,
1994; Stuss & Levine, 2002). Moreover, researchers now
understand that
different prefrontal regions may enable different executive
functions and that
other non-frontal cortical regions likely play supportive roles
(Huizinga et al.,
2006; Stuss & Benson, 1984). Major advances in science and
technology have
allowed researchers to confirm that these neuropsychological
changes are
associated with structural and functional changes in specific
cortical areas, and

that brain maturation continues into early adulthood.
One of the most common of these techniques is magnetic
resonance
imaging (MRI) which has revealed normative patterns of
morphological
change (e.g., Blakemore & Choudhury, 2006; Giedd et al.,
1999; Gogtay
et al., 2004; Lenroot & Giedd, 2006; Sowell, Thompson,
Holmes, Jernigan, &
Toga, 1999). Two changes are particularly striking: the
proliferation and
subsequent pruning of synaptic connections, and axon
myelinization. These
processes improve cognitive speed and efficiency.
Myelinization, in
particular, proceeds from posterior to anterior. This means that
the
prefrontal cortex is one of the last areas to mature yet is
associated with
important cognitive skills – including impulse control, selective
attention,
working memory, planning, and decision-making. The
prefrontal cortex is
also thought to moderate the effects of other brain areas that
become more
active during the adolescent years (Nelson, Leibenluft,
McClure, & Pine,
2005). Barnea-Goraly and colleagues (2005) reviewed MRI and
anatomical
scans of 34 six to 19-year olds. They found an increase in the

density of
white matter in the prefrontal cortex, basal ganglia, thalamic
pathways,
ventral visual pathways, and corpus collasum: areas that affect
motor skills,
attention, cognitive ability, and memory. Blakemore and
Choudhury (2006)
found similar increases in white matter through the early 20s. In
addition,
they found that the prefrontal cortex and parietal cortex also
continued to
develop throughout adolescence affecting decision-making,
response inhibi-
tion, attention, and perspective taking (social cognition).
There is neuroimaging evidence to indicate the existence of
gender
differences as well. For example, De Bellis and colleagues
(2001) found, in a
sample of 118 people ages 6–18, that males exhibited greater
decreases in
gray matter and increases in white matter over time.
Neuroimaging studies
have also provided evidence of changes associated with the
increase in
gonadal steroids at puberty. Nelson and colleagues (2005) found
significant
changes in the limbic system after the onset of puberty
including changes in
the cognitive-regulation, affective, and detection nodes of the
Social
Information Processing Network. Development of the prefrontal
cortex
occurs later, which then moderates this increase.
Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies, which

look
beyond structural changes to capture how the brain works, have
verified
systematic changes in brain activity from childhood through
adolescence
(Blakemore & Choudhury, 2006). Similar patterns are reported
from
developmental studies using quantitative
electroencephalographic brain-
mapping technology (e.g., Benninger, Matthis, & Scheffner,
1984; Gasser,
Verleger, Bacher, & Sroka, 1988; John et al., 1980; Somsen,
van’t Klooster,
van der Molen, van Leeuwen, & Licht, 1997; Thatcher, Walker,
& Giudice,
1987). One of the most profound changes is in executive
functioning
modulated by the prefrontal cortex. For example, adolescents
show greater
activation in the limbic system that subserves emotional
responses while
viewing faces with fearful expressions, whereas adults can
engage in
cognitive-regulatory tasks to modulate those responses (Nelson
et al., 2005).
This might help explain why adolescents are often described as
more
emotional, and why they react strongly to certain social stimuli
without
thinking through the consequences or context. These deficits
relative to
adults can have a significant influence on courtroom behavior,
including
difficulty thinking logically rather than emotionally, difficulty
weighing
consequences of decisions, and emotional displays or outbursts.

Indeed, there is a related and expansive body of literature on
brain
substrates to emotion regulation that supports the robustness of
such
observations (e.g., Gross, 2007). Similarly, Hunt (1999) found
that significant
changes in affect were associated with stage of puberty (early
vs middle) and
gender. Girls exhibited greater affective intensity and lability in
early puberty
while boys experienced similar changes in middle puberty.
Given that
emotion regulation may play a key role in decision-making with
regard to
engaging in precipitating delinquent behaviors as well as
cooperation within
the courtroom, research demonstrating that emotion regulation
is neurally
based and that emotion regulation as well as neural circuitry
becomes more
sophisticated with age speaks to the need to consider emotion
regulation as a
critical variable in assessments of juvenile competency.
Neuropsychology and the etiology of problem behaviors
The relationship between brain function and various psychiatric
disorders is
well documented. Electrophysiological abnormalities have been
observed

for dementias, schizophrenia, unipolar/bipolar depression,
autism, and
alcohol/substance abuse; as well as anxiety, panic, obsessive-
compulsive,
eating, learning, and attention deficit disorders (Bresnahan,
Anderson, &
Barry, 1999; Chabot, di Michele, Prichep, & John, 2001;
Hughes & John,
1999; Pizzagalli et al., 2002; Snyder & Hall, 2006; Vance &
Luk, 2000). Most
of these abnormalities involve the frontal lobes.
Beyond psychiatry and psychology, the relationship between
neuropsy-
chological risks and antisocial behavior has received increasing
attention
within the field of criminology. Brain structures and functions
have been tied
to violent or aggressive behavior (Bufkin & Luttrell, 2005;
Hawkins & Trobst,
2000). Deficits in executive functioning measured by clinical
test batteries also
predict delinquency (Cauffman, Steinberg, & Piquero, 2005;
Moffitt, Caspi,
Rutter, & Silva, 2001; Piquero, 2001; Teichner & Golden,
2000).
A number of other studies have looked at adolescent brain
development
or neuropsychological correlates in relation to drug, alcohol,
and other
problem behaviors (e.g., see Dahl & Spear, 2004). Broadly,
adolescence is
associated with increased sensation-seeking and risk-taking
(Dahl, 2004;
Kelley, Schochet, & Landry, 2004). Developments in prefrontal

cortical
pathways most likely play a major role (Kelley et al., 2004).
Data from
fMRI studies have revealed less efficient response inhibition
among children
and adolescents compared to adults (Luna & Sweeney, 2004),
and research
shows that addicted individuals have impaired inhibitory
controls mediated
by frontal regions of the brain (Lubman, Yucel, & Pantelis,
2004). Poor
response inhibition is predictive of early onset of alcohol use,
alcohol-related
problems, and the use of other illicit drugs by adolescents (Nigg
et al., 2006;
Wong et al., 2006). The rewarding effects of abused drugs,
generally, are
facilitated by brain mechanisms (Wise, Bauco, Carlezon, &
Trojniar, 1992).
Converging evidence for developmental trends in drug-seeking
comes
from rodent studies. Summarized by Kelley et al. (2004, p. 31),
adolescent
rats ‘show increases in novelty seeking and hyperactivity,
altered learning
patterns, greater sensory sensitivity and distractibility, and
altered responses
and sensitivity to drugs such as nicotine and alcohol’.
Adolescent rats
receive greater reward (Leslie et al., 2004) and experience
stronger anxiety-
reducing effects (Torrella, Badanich, Philpot, Kirstein, &
Wecker, 2004)

from nicotine – and the rewarding effects of abused drugs
generally are
facilitated by brain mechanisms (Wise et al., 1992). Leslie et al.
(2004, p.
156) concluded that ‘[t]here is increasing evidence that
adolescence is a
period of unique sensitivity of forebrain systems to
environmental stimuli,
including abused drugs’. In addition to weaker inhibitory
controls, then,
adolescents may experience greater physiological, drug- and
alcohol-induced
positive reinforcements associated with the brain’s frontal lobe.
The literature on problem behavior maps onto the brain
development
literature, which in turn is relevant to competency. For example,
the same
neuropsychological causes for drug seeking may make a
juvenile more likely
to seek rapid resolution of a court case (e.g., by taking a plea
bargain that is
not in his or her best interest).
Conclusion
Transferring juveniles to criminal court is controversial.
Debates have been
waged between advocates of more punitive sanctions for serious
offenders,
regardless of age, and critics who contend that processing
juveniles as adults
leads to coercive practices that impede justice as well as higher

recidivism
rates and stigmatization which further entrenches the juvenile’s
self-concept
as an offender outside the bounds of conventional society.
Critics have also
argued that the retributive adult system fails to capitalize on
amenability to
treatment during the adolescent years – and that even when
prosecuted for
the same charges some juveniles may be less culpable than most
adults by
virtue of their psychosocial immaturity.
Although not yet largely incorporated into research on
assessments of
juvenile competency, neuropsychological tests could help
differentiate those
who are mature enough to handle adult criminal proceedings
from those
with questionable levels of preparedness. Based on the dramatic
improve-
ments observed in executive functions during the teen years,
those in mid-
adolescence should be of primary concern. Steinberg and
Cauffman (2001)
suggested that individuals younger than 13 years are,
presumptively, not
proper candidates for transfer to adult court, whereas
individuals older than
16 years most likely have cognitive capabilities not much
different from
adults. For individuals between the ages of 13 and 16 years,
individualized
assessments are needed (Steinberg & Cauffman, 2001). This
converges with
findings from neuroimaging studies, which show that there are

active
changes taking place over the same developmental period. Inter-
individual
variations in ages of initiation and rates of change for social,
cognitive, and
physical (both pubertal and neurological) maturation mean that
it is difficult
to make generalized statements about competency by age.
It is not uncommon to see improvements in scores on
neuropsychological
and competency assessments from early to late adolescence.
Neuropsycho-
logical tests are designed to assess cognitions and capabilities
based on
cortical regions which continue to develop into young
adulthood, and that
mirror or enable the psychosocial skills associated with
adjudicative
competence. Yet the extant literature on juvenile competency
has stood
largely independent from the neuropsychological literature.
Despite ancillary
nods to the cortical changes that coincide with movement
toward
psychosocial maturity, juvenile competency researchers have
emphasized
psychosocial immaturity without delving into its physical
substrates.
Neuropsychological and neuroimaging research can offer
relevant informa-

tion about what to assess and how to assess it.
It is clear that juvenile competency is a complex issue,
particularly in light
of the normative nature of many delinquent behaviors during
adolescence
(Moffitt, 1993) and the rehabilitative potential of youthful
offenders which
may both be contingent on brain function. Other complicating
factors include
various psychiatric disorders (Grisso, 2005; Hughes & John,
1999; Lexcen,
2000), and co-morbid problem behaviors such as substance
abuse (Dahl &
Spear, 2004) that may compromise the validity of assessments
and have
different consequences for behavior depending on the
defendant’s age.
Pubertal status is another variable (Davies & Rose, 1999) that
might be a more
accurate predictor of maturation than chronological age. More
applied,
theory-driven interdisciplinary research is needed to determine
the most
effective way to assess multiple influences on juvenile
competency.
Competency to stand trial in criminal court assumes an
understanding of
the legal system and adjudication process, ability to recognize
and reason
about legally relevant information, appreciation of the meaning
and
consequences of legal actions, and the ability to knowledgeably
participate
in criminal proceedings. The neuropsychological underpinnings

of these
capabilities are yet to be thoroughly evaluated. With the ever
expanding
literature bases on adolescent brain development and juvenile
competency
assessment, integrative developmental theories are needed to
guide research
and provide theoretical pathways to apply the information to
juvenile
competency behaviors and the assessment of these behaviors.
References
American Bar Association Criminal Justice Section. (2001).
Youth in the criminal
justice system: Guidelines for policymakers and practitioners.
Washington, DC:
American Bar Association.
Anderson, V., Anderson, P., Northam, E., Jacobs, R., &
Catroppa, C. (2001).
Development of executive functions through late childhood and
adolescence in
an Australian sample. Developmental Neuropsychology, 20(1),
385–406.
Barnea-Goraly, N., Menon, V., Eckert, M., Tamm, L., Bammer,
R., Karchemskiy,
A., et al. (2005). White matter development during childhood
and adolescence: A
cross-sectional diffusion tensor imaging study. Cerebral Cortex,
15, 1848–1854.
Benninger, C., Matthis, P., & Scheffner, D. (1984). EEG
development of healthy
boys and girls: Results of a longitudinal study.

Electroencephalography and
Clinical Neurophysiology, 57, 1–12.
Blakemore, S.J., & Choudhury, S. (2006). Development of the
adolescent brain:
Implications for executive function and social cognition.
Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 47(3/4), 296–312.
Bresnahan, S.M., Anderson, J.W., & Barry, R.J. (1999). Age-
related changes in
quantitative EEG in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.
Biological Psychia-
try, 46, 1690–1697.
Bufkin, J.L., & Luttrell, V.R. (2005). Neuroimaging studies of
aggressive and violent
behavior. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 6(2), 176–191.
Cameron, J.L. (2004). Interrelationships between hormones,
behavior, and affect
during adolescence: Complex relationships exist between
reproductive hormones,
stress-related hormones, and the activity of neural systems that
regulate behavioral
affect. In R.E. Dahl & L.P. Spear (Eds.), Adolescent brain
development:
Vulnerabilities and opportunities. Annals of the New York
Academy of Sciences
(Vol. 1021, pp. 134–142). New York: New York Academy of
Sciences.

Cauffman, E., Steinberg, L., & Piquero, A.R. (2005).
Psychological, neuropsycho-
logical and physiological correlates of serious antisocial
behavior in adolescence:
The role of self-control. Criminology, 43(1), 133–175.
Chabot, R.J., di Michele, F., Prichep, L., & John, E.R. (2001).
The clinical role of
computerized EEG in the evaluation and treatment of learning
and attention
disorders in children and adolescents. Journal of
Neuropsychiatry and Clinical
Neuroscience, 13(2), 171–186.
Dahl, R.E. (2004). Adolescent brain development: A period of
vulnerabilities and
opportunities; keynote address. In R.E. Dahl & L.P. Spear
(Eds.), Adolescent
brain development: Vulnerabilities and opportunities. Annals of
the New York
Academy of Sciences (Vol. 1021, pp. 1–22). New York: New
York Academy of
Sciences.
Dahl, R.E. & Spear, L.P. (Eds.). (2004). Adolescent brain
development: Vulnerabilities
and opportunities. Annals of the New York Academy of
Sciences (Vol. 1021). New
York: New York Academy of Sciences.
Davies, P.L., & Rose, J.D. (1999). Assessment of cognitive
development in
adolescents by means of neuropsychological tasks.
Developmental Neuropsycho-
logy, 15(2), 227–248.

De Bellis, M.D., Keshavan, M.S., Beers, S.R., Hall, J., Frustaci,
K., Masalehdan, A.,
et al. (2001). Sex differences in brain maturation during
childhood and
adolescence. Cerebral Cortex, 11(6), 552–557.
De Luca, C.R., Wood, S.J., Anderson, V., Buchanan, J.-A.,
Proffitt, T.M., Mahony,
K., et al. (2003). Normative data from the Cantab I:
Development of executive
function over the lifespan. Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Neuropsychology,
25(2), 242–254.
Drizin, S.A., & Leo, R.A. (2004). The problem of false
confessions in the post-DNA
world. North Carolina Law Review, 82(3), 891–1007.
Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960).
Gasser, T., Verleger, R., Bacher, P., & Sroka, L. (1988).
Development of the EEG of
school-age children and adolescents. I. Analysis of band power.
Electroencepha-
lography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 69(2), 91–99.
Gibson, K.R. (1991). Myelination and behavioral development:
A comparative
perspective on questions of neoteny, altriciality and
intelligence. In K.R. Gibson
& A.C. Petersen (Eds.), Brain maturation and cognitive
development (pp. 29–63).
New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Giedd, J.N., Blumenthal, J., Jeffries, N.O., Castellanos, F.X.,
Liu, H., Zijdenbos, A.,

et al. (1999). Brain development during childhood and
adolescence: A
longitudinal MRI study. Nature Neuroscience, 2(10), 861–863.
Gogtay, N., Giedd, J.N., Lusk, L., Hayashi, K.M., Greenstein,
D., Vaituzis, A.C.,
et al. (2004). Dynamic mapping of human cortical development
during childhood
through early adulthood. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences,
101(21), 8174–8179.
Goldman-Rakic, P. (1987). Development of cortical circuitry
and cognitive function.
Child Development, 58(3), 601–622.
Grisso, T. (2005). Clinical evaluations for juveniles’
competence to stand trial: A guide
for legal professionals. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource
Press.
Grisso, T., Steinberg, L., Woolard, J., Cauffman, E., Scott, E.,
Graham, S., et al.
(2003). Juveniles’ competence to stand trial: A comparison of
adolescents’ and
adults’ capacities as trial defendants. Law and Human Behavior,
27(4), 333–363.
Gross, J.J. (Ed.). (2007). Handbook of emotion regulation. New
York: The Guilford
Press.

Gudjonsson, G.H. (2003). The psychology of interrogations and
confessions. West
Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons.
Hawkins, K.A., & Trobst, K.K. (2000). Frontal lobe dysfunction
and aggression:
Conceptual issues and research findings. Aggression and
Violent Behavior, 5(2),
147–157.
Howard, R.C., & Chaiwutikornwanich, A. (2006). The
relationship of interrogative
suggestibility to memory and attention. Journal of
Psychophysiology, 20(2), 79–93.
Hughes, J.R., & John, E.R. (1999). Conventional and
quantitative electroencepha-
lography in psychiatry. Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical
Neuroscience,
11(2), 190–208.
Huizinga, M., Dolan, C.V., & van der Molen, M.W. (2006).
Age-related change in
executive function: Developmental trends and a latent variable
analysis.
Neuropsychologia, 44(11), 2017–2036.
Hunt, D. (1999). Emotion in early puberty: Sex differences in
affect patterns
across pubertal phases from a developmental neuropsychology
perspective.
Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences
and Engineering,
59(10-B), 5599.
Huttenlocher, P.R. (1994). Synaptogenesis in human cerebral

cortex. In G. Dawson
& K.W. Fischer (Eds.), Human behavior and the developing
brain (pp. 137–152).
New York: Guilford Press.
John, E.R., Ahn, H., Prichep, L., Trepetin, M., Brown, D., &
Kaye, H. (1980).
Developmental equations for the electroencephalogram.
Science, 210(4475),
1255–1258.
Kelley, A.E., Schochet, T., & Landry, C.F. (2004). Risk taking
and novelty seeking
in adolescence: Introduction to Part I. In R.E. Dahl & L.P.
Spear (Eds.),
Adolescent brain development: Vulnerabilities and
opportunities. Annals of the New
York Academy of Sciences (Vol. 1021, pp. 27–32). New York:
New York
Academy of Sciences.
Lenroot, R.K., & Giedd, J.N. (2006). Brain development in
children and adolescents:
Insights from anatomical magnetic resonance imaging.
Neuroscience and
Biobehavioral Reviews, 30, 718–729.
Leslie, F.M., Loughlin, S.E., Wang, R., Perez, L., Lotfipour, S.,
& Belluzzi, J.D.
(2004). Adolescent development of forebrain stimulant
responsiveness. In
R.E. Dahl & L.P. Spear (Eds.), Adolescent brain development:
Vulnerabilities
and opportunities. Annals of the New York Academy of
Sciences (Vol. 1021,
pp. 148–159). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.

Lexcen, F. (2000). Effects of adolescent psychopathology on
juvenile competence to
make medical and legal decisions. Juvenile justice fact sheet.
Charlottesville, VA:
Institute of Law, Psychiatry, & Public Policy, University of
Virginia.
Lubman, D.I., Yucel, M., & Pantelis, C. (2004). Addiction, a
condition of
compulsive behaviour? Neuroimaging and neuropsychological
evidence of
inhibitory dysregulation. Addiction, 99, 1491–1502.
Luna, B., & Sweeney, J.A. (2004). The emergence of
collaborative brain function:
fMRI studies of the development of response inhibition. In R.E.
Dahl & L.P. Spear
(Eds.), Adolescent brain development: Vulnerabilities and
opportunities. Annals of
the New York Academy of Sciences (Vol. 1021, pp. 296–309).
New York: New York
MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent
Development and
Juvenile Justice (2006). Issue brief #5: The changing borders of
juvenile justice:
Transfer of adolescents to the adult criminal court. Retrieved
September 12, 2008,
from
http://www.adjj.org/content/resource_page.php?filter¼download

McGivern, R.F., Andersen, J., Byrd, D., Mutter, K.L., & Reilly,
J. (2002). Cognitive
efficiency on a match to sample task decreases at the onset of
puberty in children.
Brain and Cognition, 50(1), 73–89.
Mackay, R.D. (2007). AAPL practice guideline for the forensic
psychiatric
evaluation of competence to stand trial: An English legal
perspective. The
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law,
35(4), 501–504.
Melton, G.B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N.G., & Slobogin, C.
(1997). Psychological
evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health
professionals and lawyers.
New York: Guilford Press.
Meyer, J.R., & Reppucci, N.D. (2007). Police practices and
perceptions regarding
juvenile interrogation and interrogative suggestibility.
Behavioral Sciences and
the Law, 25(6), 757–780.
Moffitt, T.E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-
persistent antisocial
behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review,
100(4), 674–701.
Moffitt, T.E., Caspi, A., Rutter, M., & Silva, P.A. (2001). Sex
differences in antisocial
behaviour: Conduct disorder, delinquency, and violence in the
Dunedin Longitudinal
Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mossman, D., Noffsinger, S.G., Ash, P., Frierson, R.L.,
Gerbasi, J., Hackett, M.,
et al. (2007). AAPL practice guideline for the forensic
psychiatric evaluation of
competence to stand trial. The Journal of the American
Academy of Psychiatry
and the Law, 35(Suppl 4), S3–S72.
Nelson, E.E., Leibenluft, E., McClure, E.B., & Pine, D.S.
(2005). The social
re-orientation of adolescence: A neuroscience perspective on
the process and its
relation to psychopathology. Psychological Medicine, 35, 163–
174.
Nigg, J.T., Wong, M.M., Martel, M.M., Jester, J.M., Puttler,
L.I., Glass, J.M., et al.
(2006). Poor response inhibition as a predictor of problem
drinking and illicit drug
use in adolescents at risk for alcoholism and other substance use
disorders. Journal
of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
45(4), 468–475.
Novak, C.M., Parfitt, D.B., Sisk, C.L., & Smale, L. (2007).
Associations between
behavior, hormones, and Fos responses to novelty differ in pre-
and post-
pubertal grass rats. Physiology and Behavior, 90(1), 125–132.
O’Shaughnessy, R.J. (2007). AAPL practice guideline for the
forensic psychiatric
evaluation of competence to stand trial: A Canadian legal
perspective. The
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law,

35(4), 505–508.
Piquero, A.R. (2001). Testing Moffitt’s neuropsychological
variation hypothesis for the
prediction of life-course persistent offending. Psychology,
Crime & Law, 7, 193–215.
Pizzagalli, D.A., Nitschke, J.B., Oakes, T.R., Hendrick, A.M.,
Horras, K.A.,
Larson, C.L., et al. (2002). Brain electrical tomography in
depression: The
importance of symptom severity, anxiety, and melancholic
features. Biological
Psychiatry, 52, 73–85.
http://www.adjj.org/content/resource_page.php?filter=download
http://www.adjj.org/content/resource_page.php?filter=download
Redlich, A.D.,& Goodman, G.S.(2003).Taking responsibilityfor
anact not committed:
The influence of age and suggestibility. Law and Human
Behavior, 27(2), 141–156.
Romine, C.B., & Reynolds, C.R. (2005). A model of the
development of frontal lobe
functioning: Findings from a meta-analysis. Applied
Neuropsychology, 12(4), 190–
201.
Ryba, N.L., Cooper, V., & Zapf, P.A. (2003a). Assessment of
maturity in juvenile
competency to stand trial evaluations: A survey of practitioners.
Journal of

Forensic Psychology Practice, 3(3), 23–45.
Ryba, N.L., Cooper, V.G., & Zapf, P.A. (2003b). Juvenile
competence to stand trial
evaluations: A survey of current practices and test usage among
psychologists.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34(5), 499–
507.
Schulz, K.M., Richardson, H.N., Zehr, J.L., Osetek, A.J.,
Menard, T.A., & Sisk, C.L.
(2004). Gonadal hormones masculinize and defeminize
reproductive behaviors
duringpuberty in the male Syrianhamster. Hormonesand
Behavior, 45(4), 242–249.
Scott-Hayward, C.S. (2007). Explaining juvenile false
confessions: Adolescent
development and police interrogation. Law & Psychology
Review, 31, 53–76.
Sisk, C.L., & Foster, D.L. (2004). The neural basis of puberty
and adolescence.
Nature Neuroscience, 7(10), 1040–1047.
Sisk, C.L., & Zehr, J.L. (2005). Pubertal hormones organize the
adolescent brain and
behavior. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 26(3–4), 163–174.
Snyder, S.M., & Hall, J.R. (2006). A meta-analysis of
quantitative EEG power
associated with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal
of Clinical
Neurophysiology, 23(5), 441–456.
Snyder, H.N., & Sickmund, M. (1999). Juvenile offenders and

victims: 1999 national
report. Retrieved September 12, 2008, from
http://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/
nationalreport99/toc.html
Somsen, R.J.M., van’t Klooster, B.J., van der Molen, M.W., van
Leeuwen, H.M.P.,
& Licht, R. (1997). Growth spurts in brain maturation during
middle childhood
as indexed by EEG power spectra. Biological Psychology,
44(3), 187–209.
Sowell, E.R., Thompson, P.M., Holmes, C.J., Jernigan, T.L., &
Toga, A.W. (1999).
In vivo evidence for post-adolescent brain maturation in frontal
and striatal
regions. Nature Neuroscience, 2(10), 859–861.
Steinberg, L., & Cauffman, E. (2001). Adolescents as adults in
court: A developmental
perspective on the transfer of juveniles to criminal court. Social
Policy Report, 15(4),
1–16.
Steinberg, L., & Scott, E.S. (2003). Less guilty by reason of
adolescence:
Developmental immaturity, diminished responsibility, and the
juvenile death
penalty. American Psychologist, 58(12), 1009–1018.
Stuss, D.T., & Benson, D.F. (1984). Neuropsychological studies
of the frontal lobes.
Psychological Bulletin, 95(1), 3–28.
Stuss, D.T., & Levine, B. (2002). Adult clinical
neuropsychology: Lessons from

studies of the frontal lobes. Annual Review of Psychology,
53(1), 401–433.
Teichner, G., & Golden, C.J. (2000). The relationship of
neuropsychological
impairment to conduct disorder in adolescence: A conceptual
review. Aggression
and Violent Behavior, 5(6), 509–528.
Thatcher, R.W., Walker, R.A., & Giudice, S. (1987). Human
cerebral hemispheres
develop at different rates and ages. Science, 236(4805), 1110–
1113.
Torrella, T.A., Badanich, K.A., Philpot, R.M., Kirstein, C.L., &
Wecker, L. (2004).
Developmental differences in nicotine place conditioning. In
R.E. Dahl & L.P. Spear
(Eds.), Adolescent brain development: Vulnerabilities and
opportunities. Annals of the
New York Academy of Sciences (Vol. 1021, pp. 399–403). New
York: New York
http://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/nationalreport99/toc.html
http://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/nationalreport99/toc.html
Vance, A.L.A., & Luk, E.S.L. (2000). Attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder:
Current progress and controversies. Australian and New Zealand
Journal of
Psychiatry, 34, 719–730.

Viljoen, J.I., & Roesch, R. (2005). Competence to waive
interrogation rights and
adjudicative competence in adolescent defendants: Cognitive
development,
attorney contact, and psychological symptoms. Law and Human
Behavior,
29(6), 723–742.
Walker, E.F., Sabuwalla, Z., & Hout, R. (2004). Pubertal
neuromaturation, stress
sensitivity, and psychopathology. Development and
Psychopathology, 16(4), 807–
824.
Wise, R.A., Bauco, P., Carlezon, W.A., & Trojniar, W. (1992).
Self-stimulation and
drug reward mechanisms. In P.W. Kalivas & H.H. Sampson
(Eds.), The
neurobiology of drug and alcohol addiction. Annals of the New
York Academy of
Sciences (Vol. 654, pp. 192–198). New York: New York
Wong, M.M., Nigg, J.T., Zucker, R.A., Puttler, L.I., Fitzgerald,
H.E., Jester, J.M.,
et al. (2006). Behavioral control and resiliency in the onset of
alcohol and illicit
drug use: A prospective study from preschool to adolescence.
Child Development,
77(4), 1016–1033.
Copyright of Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology is

the property of Routledge and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.

RESEARCH ARTICLEJuvenile competency to stand trial in crim.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to RESEARCH ARTICLEJuvenile competency to stand trial in crim.docx

Similar to RESEARCH ARTICLEJuvenile competency to stand trial in crim.docx (16)

More from audeleypearl

More from audeleypearl (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

RESEARCH ARTICLEJuvenile competency to stand trial in crim.docx