Literature DB >> 14664689

Less guilty by reason of adolescence: developmental immaturity, diminished responsibility, and the juvenile death penalty.

Laurence Steinberg1, Elizabeth S Scott.   

Abstract

The authors use a developmental perspective to examine questions about the criminal culpability of juveniles and the juvenile death penalty. Under principles of criminal law, culpability is mitigated when the actor's decision-making capacity is diminished, when the criminal act was coerced, or when the act was out of character. The authors argue that juveniles should not be held to the same standards of criminal responsibility as adults, because adolescents' decision-making capacity is diminished, they are less able to resist coercive influence, and their character is still undergoing change. The uniqueness of immaturity as a mitigating condition argues for a commitment to a legal environment under which most youths are dealt with in a separate justice system and none are eligible for capital punishment. ((c) 2003 APA, all rights reserved)

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14664689     DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.58.12.1009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am Psychol        ISSN: 0003-066X


  27 in total

1.  The Effective Treatment of Juveniles Who Sexually Offend: An Ethical Imperative.

Authors:  Elizabeth J Letourneau; Charles M Borduin
Journal:  Ethics Behav       Date:  2008-04-01

2.  Legal, individual, and environmental predictors of court disposition in a sample of serious adolescent offenders.

Authors:  Elizabeth Cauffman; Alex R Piquero; Eva Kimonis; Laurence Steinberg; Laurie Chassin; Jeffery Fagan
Journal:  Law Hum Behav       Date:  2007-01-24

Review 3.  The influence of neuroscience on US Supreme Court decisions about adolescents' criminal culpability.

Authors:  Laurence Steinberg
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2013-06-12       Impact factor: 34.870

4.  Rational Choice and Developmental Influences on Recidivism Among Adolescent Felony Offenders.

Authors:  Jeffrey Fagan; Alex R Piquero
Journal:  J Empir Leg Stud       Date:  2007-12-01

Review 5.  For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything.

Authors:  Joshua Greene; Jonathan Cohen
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2004-11-29       Impact factor: 6.237

6.  Measurement of Change in Dynamic Factors Using the START:AV.

Authors:  Brian G Sellers; Sarah L Desmarais; Matthew W Hanger
Journal:  J Forensic Psychol Res Pract       Date:  2017-06-05

Review 7.  An emerging field of research: challenges in pediatric decision making.

Authors:  Ellen A Lipstein; William B Brinkman; Alexander G Fiks; Kristin S Hendrix; Jennifer Kryworuchko; Victoria A Miller; Lisa A Prosser; Wendy J Ungar; David Fox
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2014-08-21       Impact factor: 2.583

8.  Aboriginal street-involved youth experience elevated risk of incarceration.

Authors:  B Barker; G T Alfred; K Fleming; P Nguyen; E Wood; T Kerr; K DeBeck
Journal:  Public Health       Date:  2015-09-29       Impact factor: 2.427

9.  "It's a rush": psychosocial content of antisocial decision making.

Authors:  Kathryn Lynn Modecki
Journal:  Law Hum Behav       Date:  2008-08-14

10.  Psychopathic traits and offender characteristics - a nationwide consecutive sample of homicidal male adolescents.

Authors:  Nina Lindberg; Taina Laajasalo; Matti Holi; Hanna Putkonen; Ghitta Weizmann-Henelius; Helinä Häkkänen-Nyholm
Journal:  BMC Psychiatry       Date:  2009-05-06       Impact factor: 3.630

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.