Review of \u3cem\u3eDouble Jeopardy: Adolescent Offenders with Mental Disorders.\u3c/em\u3e Thomas Grisso. Reviewed by James W. Callicutt.

Book review of Thomas Grisso, Double Jeopardy: Adolescent Offenders with Mental Disorders. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2004. $29.00 hardcover

Keynote Speaker Presentations: 5th Annual UMass Center for Clinical and Translational Research Retreat (video)

This video features the full keynote presentations from the 5th Annual UMass Center for Clinical and Translational Science Research Retreat at the University of Massachusetts Medical School (UMMS) in Worcester, MA, on May 20, 2014. Beginning at 12:40 1st Keynote Speaker: Robert H. Brown, Jr., MD, D.Phil, Chair, Department of Neurology, UMMS. “Lou Gehrig Disease: From Mapping to Medicines” Beginning at 1:22:19 2nd Keynote Speaker: Thomas Grisso, PhD, Director, Law and Psychiatry Program and Professor, Department of Psychiatry, UMMS. Recipient, Chancellor’s Medal for Distinguished Scholarship. “Translational Research in Law and Psychiatry” Also included is a brief introductory presentation with updates about the UMass Center for Clinical and Translational Science by Katherine Luzuriaga, MD, Director, UMCCTS

Conference Bibliography: Juvenile Justice 1999-2013

A selected bibliography was prepared in connection with the Juvenile Justice Conference held at the William S. Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, on April 12-13, 2013

Improving the “Kangaroo Courts:” A Proposal for Reform in the Evaluation of Juveniles’ Waivers of Miranda

... In recent years, as juvenile crime rates have continued to rise, the public perceives juveniles as more sophisticated and, therefore, similar to their adult counterparts. ... If our purpose is truly to ensure that juveniles\u27 waiver of Miranda rights are knowing, intelligent, and voluntary then we must implement changes to ensure that children have sufficient protections during custodial interrogation. ... The Court created a formal process of advising suspects of their constitutional rights during custodial interrogation to ensure that waiver of these rights by a suspect was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. ... Dissatisfied with the current procedures, reformers felt that the legal system should not treat children like their adult counterparts; reformers believed that the justice system needed to instate juvenile procedures with a social welfare philosophy. ... Despite its well-intentioned beginnings, the juvenile justice system failed to meet its laudable goals of providing children with rehabilitation rather than discipline. ... When parents did speak with their children during interrogation, they recommended waiver of rights. ... Thus, if the purpose is truly to protect children, and is no longer to view the juvenile court system as a benevolent process designed to help them, then advocacy of the interested adult standard is misplaced. ... These children would still be accorded interested adult protection, but a lawyer would act as the adult present. ..

Yonder Stands Your Orphan with His Gun: The International Human Rights and Therapeutic Jurisprudence Implications of Juvenile Punishment Schemes

In the last decade, the US Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty, a life sentence without possibility of parole (LWOP), and mandatory LWOP for homicide convictions violate the Eighth Amendment when applied to juvenile defendants. These decisions were premised, in large part, on findings that developments in psychology and brain science continue to show fundamental differences between juvenile and adult minds, and that those findings both lessened a child\u27s moral culpability and enhanced the prospect that, as the years go by and neurological development occurs, his deficiencies will be reformed. These decisions have, by and large, been welcomed by juvenile justice advocates, as game-changing landmarks, and as reflecting a positive result for juvenile justice. However, none of these cases speaks directly to the case of the juvenile with mental illness or mental retardation who is incarcerated either in adult facilities or in juvenile facilities for lesser crimes or for less severe sentences than life-without-parole. Such incarceration, in many instances, violates international human rights law, and may violate the Eighth Amendment as well. In its juvenile death penalty/LWOP cases, the Supreme Court stressed that international human rights (IHR) law supported its decisions. However, the Court has, as of yet, not had the opportunity to consider the IHR implications of either (1) the routine housing of juveniles in adult jails and prisons, or (2) the disproportionate number of incarcerated juveniles - both in juvenile and in adult correctional facilities - with mental disabilities. In 2008, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) was ratified. The Disability Convention furthers the human rights approach to disability and recognizes the right of people with disabilities to equality in most every aspect of life, calling for respect for inherent dignity and non-discrimination. This paper explores the relationship between the incarceration of juveniles with mental disabilities and international human rights law, especially the CRPD, and concludes that our current system - of warehousing juveniles with mental illness in juvenile detention facilities and reformatories, and in prisons following pre-adjudication transfers - violates international human rights law, including, but not limited to, the CRPD. It first considers data available on the mental status of incarcerated juveniles, with special attention to issues of race and gender. It next considers conditions of confinement faced by such juveniles, looking at how jails and detention facilities are increasingly relied upon to provide mental health services, albeit meager services and often counter-productive services, a deficiency exacerbated by current transfer/waiver policies. It then reviews the important international human rights documents that apply to the questions under discussion. Finally, it considers all these issues through the prism of therapeutic jurisprudence, with an eye towards specific remedies that might ameliorate the situation with which we are faced

Developmental Incompetence, Due Process, and Juvenile Justice Policy

In 2003, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the murder conviction and life sentence imposed on Lionel Tate, who was twelve years old when he killed his six-year-old neighbor. Since Lionel was reported to be the youngest person in modern times to be sent to prison for life, the case had generated considerable debate, and the decision was appealed on several grounds. What persuaded the appellate court that the conviction could not stand, however, was the trial court\u27s rejection of a petition by Lionel\u27s attorney for an evaluation of his client\u27s competence to assist counsel and to make a decision about the state\u27s plea offer. This case highlights an issue that has hovered almost unnoticed in the background of the recent punitive juvenile justice reforms that have resulted in criminal prosecutions of young teens and. adult-like sentences in juvenile court. This legal trend has been the subject of intense political and academic debates, focusing on whether the reforms fulfill the criminal law goals of public protection, individual accountability, and proportionate punishment – and generally, whether imposing harsh punishment on young offenders ultimately serves the public interest. By comparison, whether youths who face serious legal jeopardy have the developmental capacities to function adequately as criminal defendants has received little attention. And yet, even a cursory examination of constitutional doctrine in this area and its application to the recent reforms make clear that this issue cannot be ignored. It is well established in American law that a defendant cannot be subject to criminal adjudication if he is incompetent to stand trial because he is unable to understand the charges against him or the nature of the proceedings, or to assist his attorney in his defense. The Supreme Court has emphasized that these requirements are essential for fundamental fairness and are mandated by the Due Process Clause because they protect the accuracy and integrity of criminal proceedings. The conventional standard by which competence is evaluated focuses on adults\u27 cognitive deficiencies caused by mental illness or mental retardation. Beginning in the 1970s, courts and legislatures have extended this protection to mentally impaired youths adjudicated in juvenile proceedings. However, few lawmakers have addressed the impact of developmental immaturity on competence