We Don’t Always Mean What We Say: Attitudes Toward Statutory Exclusion of Juvenile Offenders From Juvenile Court Jurisdiction

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 measured in the absence of specific case-specific details may not be the best indicator of agreement with such laws in practice. We found that support for statutory exclusion was affected by exposure to information about an offender’s unique situation and by exposure to general scientific information about adolescent development. These results suggest that despite an apparent widespread agreement with automatic exclusion statutes, laypersons consider factors other than those allowed by the law when they are asked how to treat an individual offender

Alternatives to inpatient evaluations of fitness to stand trial

The article is focused on the issue of competency to stand trial and the need for reform in the manner in which individuals are evaluated by mental health professionals. The authors argue that criminal defendants for the purpose of evaluation are unnecessarily detered in forensic facilities for the purpose of evaluation fitness to stand trial. A large number of studies have demonstrated that community-based screening of fitness is both feasible and cost effective. Legal and Mental Health professionals will need to work toghether to ensure that this reform is realized.Este artigo é dedicado ao tema da competência para a apresentação perante um Juiz e a necessidade de reformar o modo como os indivíduos são avaliados pelos profissionais de saúde mental. Os autores argumentam que os arguidos são detidos desnecessariamente em estabelecimentos prisionais para a avaliação da sua capacidade para ir a julgamento. Através de um número alargado de estudos de investigação é possível demonstrar que a avaliação de base comunitária é não só possível como apresenta melhores índices em termos de custos. Os profissionais do sistema judicial e da área da saúde mental precisarão de trabalhar em conjunto para assegurar que esta reforma se realiza.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Forensic psychology and law/ Roesch

ix, p. 368: ill.; 25 c

We Don’t Always Mean What We Say: Attitudes Toward Statutory Exclusion of Juvenile Offenders from Juvenile Court Jurisdiction

In the United States, juvenile offenders are often excluded from the jurisdiction of 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 measured in the absence of specific case-specific details may not be the best indicator of agreement with such laws in practice. We found that support for statutory exclusion was affected by exposure to information about an offender’s unique situation and by exposure to general scientific information about adolescent development. These results suggest that despite apparent widespread agreement with automatic exclusion statutes, laypersons consider factors other than those allowed by the law when they are asked how to treat an individual offender

The role of Canadian psychologists in conducting fitness and criminal responsibility evaluations

Historically, only physicians, typically psychiatrists, were permitted to conduct forensic mental health evaluations for the courts. In the United States, the courts have affirmed increasing acceptance of involvement of psychologists since the 1940s. In Canada, the legal system continues to adhere to the assumption of medical dominance to a large extent. For instance, Canadian legislation requires that a physician conduct court-ordered assessments of fitness to stand trial and criminal responsibility. In this article, relevant Canadian law is compared to American law, and empirical research on the ability of psychologists to assess fitness and criminal responsibility is discussed. These legal and empirical reviews are used to generate policy recommendations regarding the qualifications of forensic examiners

The impact of Canadian Criminal Code changes on remands and assessments of fitness to stand trial and criminal responsibility in British Columbia

Objective: To evaluate the impact in British Columbia of the 1992 Criminal Code of Canada amendments dealing with remands for fitness to stand trial and not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) assessments. Method: Information on 620 remands for evaluation of fitness to stand trial and/or NCRMD were collected from a sample obtained in British Columbia from 1992 to 1994. The data collected included length of remand order, length of evaluation, criminal charges, psychiatric diagnoses, and the decisions about fitness or NCRMD. Results: Remands increased by about 20% in a 1993-1994 fiscal year compared with the previous year. The majority of evaluations continue to be conducted in an inpatient facility. The goal of a 5-day evaluation period is rarely met: only 12.5% of inpatients were released within 5 days of admission, and the average length of evaluation was about 3 weeks. The use and success of the NCRMD defence appears to be on the rise. In addition, there were some striking differences in remands from metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas in terms of rates of referral and recommendations of unfitness or NCRMD. Conclusion: Results indicated that Bill C-30 has not yet had the anticipated impact on remands as inpatient evaluations continue to be the norm and evaluations typically take several weeks. Suggestions for policy reform and future research are presented