Improving professional judgments of risk and amenability in juvenile justice

Future of Children

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 35-57

  Mulvey, Edward P ^a   Iselin, Anne Marie R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CRIMINAL JUSTICE; CRIMINAL LAW; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE PRACTICE; JUVENILE DELINQUENCY; LEGAL PROCEDURE; REVIEW;

ADOLESCENT; DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; JUVENILE DELINQUENCY; LAW ENFORCEMENT; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 55549112873     PISSN: 10548289     EISSN: 15501558     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1353/foc.0.0012     Document Type: Review

References (90)

1. Holly Beatty, "Is The Trend to Expand Juvenile Transfer Statutes Just an Easy Answer to a Complex Problem?" University of Toledo Law Review 26 (1995): 979-1025;
2. Kirk Heilbrun and others, "A National Survey of U.S. Statutes on Juvenile Transfer: Implications for Policy and Practice," Behavioral Sciences and the Law 15 (1997): 125-49;
3. Christopher C. Slobogin, "Treating Kids Right: Deconstructing and Reconstructing the Amenability to Treatment Concept," Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues 10 (1999): 299-333.
4. Honorable Orman W. Ketcham and Monrad G. Paulsen, "Mack, The Juvenile Court," in Juvenile Courts Cases and Materials (Brooklyn: The Foundation Press, 1967), p. 11.
5. David S. Tanenhaus, "The Evolution of Juvenile Courts in the Early Twentieth Century: Beyond the Myth of Immaculate Construction," in A Century of Juvenile Justice, edited by Margaret K. Roseheim and others (University of Chicago Press, 2002), p. 42.
6. Ketcham and Paulsen, "Mack, The Juvenile Court" (see note 2).
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. Tanenhaus, "The Evolution of the Juvenile Courts in the Early Twentieth Century: Beyond the Myth of Immaculate Construction" (see note 3).
10. Kent v. United States 383 U.S. 541, 86 S.Ct. 1045 (1966).
11. Barry C. Feld, "Abolish the Juvenile Court: Youthfulness, Criminal Responsibility, and Sentencing Policy (Symposium on the Future of the Juvenile Court)," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 88, no. 1 (1997): 68-136.
12. One such landmark case was Kent v. United States (see note 8). David S. Tanenhaus, "The Evolution of Transfer out of the Juvenile Court," in The Changing Borders of Juvenile Justice: Transfer of Adolescents to the Criminal Court, edited by Jeffrey Fagan and Franklin E. Zimring (University of Chicago Press, 2000), p. 13.
13. Franklin E. Zimring, "Penal Proportionality for the Young Offender: Notes on Immaturity, Capacity, and Diminished Responsibility," in American Juvenile Justice (Oxford University Press, 2005), p. 49.
14. Franklin E. Zimring, "The Punitive Necessity of Waiver," in The Changing Borders of Juvenile Justice: Transfer of Adolescents to the Criminal Court, edited by Jeffrey Fagan and Franklin E. Zimring (University of Chicago Press, 2000), p. 207.
15. Slobogin, "Treating Kids Right: Deconstructing and Reconstructing the Amenability to Treatment Concept" (see note 1).
16. Ibid.
17. Thomas Grisso, Forensic Evaluation of Juveniles (Sarasota, Fla.: Professional Resource Press, 1998), p.134;
18. Randall T. Salekin and others, "Juvenile Transfer to Adult Courts: A Look at the Prototypes for Dangerousness, Sophistication-Maturity, and Amenability to Treatment through a Legal Lens," Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 8, no. 4 (2002): 373-410.
19. Edward P. Mulvey and N. Dickon Reppucci, "Perceptions of Appropriate Services for Juvenile Offenders," Criminal Justice and Behavior 11, no. 4 (1984): 401-22.
20. Howard N. Snyder and Melissa Sickmund, Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report (Washington: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2006).
21. David B. Marshall and Diana English, "Neural Network Modeling of Risk Assessment in Child Protective Services," Psychological Methods 5, no. 1 (2000): 102-24.
22. Robyn M. Dawes, David Faust, and Paul E. Meehl, "Clinical Versus Actuarial Judgment," Science 31 (1989): 1668-73.
23. Robyn M. Dawes and Bernard Corrigan, "Linear Models in Decision Making," Psychological Bulletin 81, no. 2 (1974): 95-106.
24. Vernon L. Quinsey and others, Violent Offenders: Appraising and Managing Risk (Washington: American Psychological Association, 2006).
25. Christopher D. Webster, Stephen J. Hucker, and Hy Bloom, "Transcending the Actuarial versus Clinical Polemic in Assessing Risk for Violence," Criminal Justice and Behavior 29, no. 5 (2002): 659-65.
26. John Monahan, The Clinical Prediction of Violent Behavior, Crime and Delinquency Issues: A Monograph Series (National Institute of Mental Health, 1981).
27. Howard N. Garb, Studying the Clinician: Judgment Research and Psychological Assessment (Washington: American Psychological Association, 1998).
28. John F. Edens, Justin S. Campbell, and John M. Weir, "Youth Psychopathy and Criminal Recidivism: A Meta-analysis of the Psychopathy Checklist Measures," Law and Human Behavior 31, no. 1 (2007): 53-75.
29. Susan Guarino-Ghezzi and Edward J. Loughran, Balancing Juvenile Justice (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 1996);
30. Craig S. Schwalbe and others, "North Carolina Assessment of Risk (NCAR): Reliability and Predictive Validity with Juvenile Offenders," Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 40, nos. 1-2 (2004): 1-22.
31. Richard G. Wiebush and others, "Risk Assessment and Classification for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders," in A Sourcebook: Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders, edited by James C. Howell and others (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1995), p. 171.
32. Judy Krysik and Craig W. LeCroy, "The Empirical Validation of an Instrument to Predict Risk of Recidivism among Juvenile Offenders," Research on Social Work Practice 12, no. 1 (2002): 71-81;
33. Craig S. Schwalbe and others, "Classifying Juvenile Offenders According to Risk of Recidivism: Predictive Validity, Race/Ethnicity, and Gender," Criminal Justice and Behavior 33, no. 3 (2006): 305-24;
34. Susan Turner and Terry Fain, "Validation of the Risk and Resiliency Assessment Tool for Juveniles in the Los Angeles County Probation System," Federal Probation 70, no. 2 (2006): 49-57;
35. Craig S. Schwalbe, Mark W. Fraser, and Steven H. Day, "Predictive Validity of the Joint Risk Matrix with Juvenile Offenders: A Focus on Gender and Race/Ethnicity," Criminal Justice and Behavior 34, no. 3 (2007): 348-61.
36. Christopher Baird, Validating Risk Assessment Instruments Used in Community Corrections (Madison, Wis.: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 1991).
37. Edward P. Mulvey, "Risk Assessment in Juvenile Justice Policy and Practice," in Juvenile Delinquency: Prevention, Assessment, and Intervention," edited by Kirk Heilbrun, Naomi E. Goldstein, and Richard Redding (Oxford University Press, 2005), p. 209.
38. See Richard A. Mendel, Pathways to Juvenile Detention Reform - Beyond Detention System Transformation through Juvenile Detention Reform (Baltimore, Md.: The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2007).
39. Vincent Schirali and Jason Ziedenberg, Reducing Disproportionate Minority Confinement: The Multnomah County Oregon Success Story and Its Implications (Juvenile Policy Institute, 2001, September 21).
40. D. A. Andrews and James Bonta, The Level of Service Inventory-Revised (Toronto: Multi-Health Systems, 1995);
41. Wiebush and others, "Risk Assessment and Classification for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders" (see note 27);
42. Richard Dembo and others, "Development and Evaluation of a Classification of High Risk Youths Entering a Juvenile Assessment Center," Substance Use and Misuse 31, no. 3 (1996): 301-22;
43. Robert D. Hoge, D. A. Andrews, and Alan W. Leschied, "An Investigation of Risk and Protective Factors in a Sample of Youthful Offenders," Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 37, no. 4 (1996): 419-24.
44. Robert D. Hoge, "Standardizing Instruments for Assessing Risk and Need in Youthful Offenders," Criminal Justice and Behavior 29, no. 4 (2002): 380-96;
45. Alexandra H. O. Lewis and Christopher D. Webster, "General Instruments for Risk Assessment," Current Opinion in Psychiatry 17, no. 5 (2004): 401-05.
46. Thomas Grisso, Gina Vincent, and Daniel Seagrave, Mental Health Screening and Assessment in Juvenile Justice (New York: Guilford Press, 2005).
47. Christopher D. Webster, Rudiger Muller-Isberner, and Goran Fransson, "Violence Risk Assessment: Using Structured Clinical Guides Professionally," International Journal of Forensic Mental Health 1, no. 2 (2002): 185-93.
48. Paul J. Frick and Robert D. Hare, The Antisocial Process Screening Device (Toronto: Multi-Health Systems, 2001);
49. Sarah E. Spain and others, "The Relationship between Psychopathic Features, Violence, and Treatment Outcome: The Comparison of Three Youth Measures of Psychopathic Features," Behavioral Sciences and the Law 22 (2004): 85-102;
50. Diana M. Falkenbach, Norman G. Poythress, and Kathleen M. Heide, "Psychopathic Features in a Juvenile Diversion Population: Reliability and Predictive Validity of Two Self-Report Measures," Behavioral Sciences and the Law 21 (2003): 787-805.
51. Kimberly A. Blanchard and others, "Motivational Subtypes and Continuous Measures of Readiness for Change: Concurrent and Predictive Validity," Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 17 (2003): 56-65;
52. Michael V. Pantalon and Arthur J. Swanson, "Motivational Readiness to Change in Psychiatric and Dually Diagnosed Individuals," Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 17, no. 2 (2003): 91-97;
53. Russell C. Callaghan and others, "Does Stage-of-Change Predict Dropout in a Culturally Diverse Sample of Adolescents Admitted to Inpatient Substance-Abuse Treatment? A Test of the Transtheoretical Model," Addictive Behavior 30 (2005): 1834-47;
54. Mary McMurran, Eleni Theodosi, and Joselyn Sellen, "Measuring Engagement in Therapy and Motivation to Change in Adult Prisoners: A Brief Report," Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health 16 (2006): 124-29.
55. Randall T. Salekin, Manual for the Risk, Sophistication, and Treatment Inventory (Lutz, Fla.: Psychological Assessment Resources, 2001).
56. Anne-Marie R. Leistico and Randall T. Salekin, "Testing the Reliability and Validity of the Risk, Sophistication-Maturity, and Treatment Amenability Instrument (RST-i): An Assessment Tool for Juvenile Offenders," International Journal of Forensic Mental Health 2, no. 2 (2003): 101-17.
57. Robert D. Hoge and D. A. Andrews, Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory: User's Manual (Toronto: Multi-Health Systems, 2002);
58. Elizabeth R. Rahdert, The Adolescent Assessment/Referral System (Rockville, Md.: National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1991);
59. Giorgio E. Ilacqua and others, "Predictive Validity of the Young Offender Level of Service Inventory for Criminal Recidivism of Male and Female Young Offenders," Psychological Reports 84, no. 3, pt. 2 (1999): 1214-18;
60. Sandy Jung and Edward P. Rawana, "Risk and Need Assessment of Juvenile Offenders," Criminal Justice and Behavior 26, no. 1 (1999): 69-89;
61. Richard Dembo and Amanda Anderson, "Problem-Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers," in Mental Health Screening and Assessment in Juvenile Justice, edited by Thomas Grisso, Gina Vincent, and Daniel Seagrave (New York: The Guildford Press, 2005), p. 112;
62. John Marshall and others, "The Relative Validity of Psychopathy versus Risk/Needs-Based Assessments in the Prediction of Adolescent Offending Behaviour," Legal and Criminological Psychology 11 (2006): 197-210.
63. Robyn M. Dawes, "The Robust Beauty of Improper Linear Models in Decision Making," American Psychologist 34, no. 7 (1979): 571-82;
64. Eileen Gambrill and Aron Schlonsky, "Risk Assessment in Context," Children and Youth Services Review 22, no. 11-12 (2000): 813-37.
65. Mulvey, "Risk Assessment in Juvenile Justice Policy and Practice" (see note 30).
66. Schwalbe and others, "Classifying Juvenile Offenders According to Risk of Recidivism" (see note 28).
67. Edens, Campbell, and Weir, "Youth Psychopathy and Criminal Recidivism" (see note 25).
68. Randy Borum, "Improving the Clinical Practice of Violence Risk Assessment: Technology, Guidelines, and Training," American Psychologist 51, no. 9 (1996): 945-56;
69. Kirk Heilbrun, "Prediction versus Management Models Relevant to Risk Assessment: The Importance of Legal Decision-Making Context," Law and Human Behavior 21, no. 4 (1997): 374-59.
70. Edward P. Mulvey and Charles W. Lidz, "Conditional Prediction: A Model for Research on Dangerousness to Others in a New Era," International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 18, no. 2 (1995): 129-43.
71. Kevin S. Douglas and Jennifer L. Skeem, "Violence Risk Assessment: Getting Specific about Being Dynamic," Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 11, no. 3 (2005): 347-83.
72. Lisa M. Broidy and others, "Developmental Trajectories of Childhood Disruptive Behaviors and Adolescent Delinquency: A Six-Site, Cross-National Study," Developmental Psychology 39, no. 2 (2003): 222-45.
73. Terence P. Thornberry, Marvin D. Krohn, and Alan J. Lizotte, Taking Stock of Delinquency: An Overview of Findings from Contemporary Longitudinal Studies (New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2003);
74. Alex R. Piquero, David P. Farrington, and Alfred H. Blumstein, Cambridge Studies in Criminology (Cambridge University Press, 2007);
75. Terence P. Thornberry, Marvin D. Krohn, and Alan J. Lizotte, Taking Stock of Delinquency: An Overview of Findings from Contemporary Longitudinal Studies (New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2003);
76. Alex R. Piquero, David P. Farrington, and Alfred H. Blumstein, Cambridge Studies in Criminology (Cambridge University Press, 2007).
77. Certainly, some adolescent offenders have extensive prior damage (either neurological or socioemotional), limited skills, undeveloped conscience, or irrational rage that overwhelms the possibilities for positive developmental change. The amount of potential change surrounding these individuals' future delinquent behavior is therefore more limited and predictable than that of most juvenile offenders. However, these adolescents are very rare and are certainly not the majority of serious adolescent offenders. They are not defined well by the severity of the committing offense but are rather generally identifiable based on the intensity, chronicity, and severity of their prior delinquent behaviors.
78. See Piquero, Farrington, and Blumstein, Cambridge Studies in Criminology (see note 50).
79. Edward P. Mulvey and others, "Theory and Research on Desistance from Antisocial Activity among Serious Adolescent Offenders," Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 2, no. 3 (2004): 213-36.
80. Mulvey, "Risk Assessment in Juvenile Justice Policy and Practice" (see note 30). Although these are not new conclusions, a disconnect between this knowledge and the implementation of this knowledge still exists. Perhaps the clearest example of a policy ignoring the realities of clinical judgment and adolescent development is when particular locales give mandatory life sentences without parole to adolescents convicted of certain offenses in adult court. The logic for this practice is that it promotes the legitimate justice system goals of retribution, deterrence, and incapacitation. Based on what we know about adolescent decision making and judgments of future risk, however, it seems that the arguments for the policy as a method of retribution are certainly stronger than those for deterrence or incapacitation. Regarding deterrence, little research supports the idea that adolescent decision making at the time of committing an offense is affected by direct knowledge of the specifics of the punishment schemes under the law. If the goal is to achieve the maximum incapacitation benefit from imposing this sentence on juveniles at the beginning of a long criminal career, basing this determination on the current presenting offense is an inexact way to achieve this end. Adolescents who commit very serious offenses, like aggravated assault with a weapon, are still capable of, and likely to experience, developmental change. Regular reassessments of these individuals' level of risk and treatment amenability through early adulthood might foster more efficient uses of prison resources with little compromise to the gains in deterrence from such a policy.
81. Roscoe Pound, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Law (Yale University Press, 1954).
82. Yeheskel Hasenfeld, "People Processing Organizations: An Exchange Approach," American Sociological Review 37, no. 3 (1972): 256-63;
83. Yeheskel Hasenfeld and Paul P. L. Cheung, "The Juvenile Court as a People-Processing Organization: A Political Economy Perspective," American Journal of Sociology 90, no. 4 (1985): 801-24.
84. Involvement with the court is also often seen as a mechanism to give an adolescent or family a message that the adolescent's behavior is a serious violation of societal norms and that continued antisocial activity will produce more severe consequences. When it is functioning well in this regard, court professionals and hearings convey concern, firmness, and fairness that translate into respect for the legal process. This demonstration of social disapproval is a very important role of the court, but it is not one directed to only particular individuals, so there is no discussion of it in the context of this paper.
85. Kent v. United States (see note 8).
86. Thomas Grisso and Richard Barnum, Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument-Second Version: User's Manual and Technical Report (Worcester, Mass.: University of Massachusetts Medical School, 2003).
87. Schwalbe, Fraser, and Day, "Predictive Validity of the Joint Risk Matrix with Juvenile Offenders" (see note 28).
88. See, for example, Peter R. Jones and Philip W. Harris, "Developing an Empirically Based Typology of Delinquent Youths," Journal of Quantitative Criminology 15, no. 3 (1999): 251-76, which reports on a large-scale, integrated system (Philadelphia's Program Development and Evaluation System; ProDES) that gathers assessment data, monitors the nature of services provided to all individuals committed to juvenile justice agencies, and measures outcomes such as recidivism. The product of such systems is an empirically and clinically rich dataset that provides information on what types of treatments work or do not work for which types of offenders.
89. Mark W. Lipsey and David B. Wilson, "Effective Intervention for Serious Juvenile Offenders: A Synthesis of Research," in Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions, edited by Rolf Loeber and David P. Farrington (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1998), p. 313.
90. Jones and Harris, "Developing an Empirically Based Typology of Delinquent Youths" (see note 61).