Doctoral Dissertation Research: (De)constructing Youthfulness in Juvenile Court: An Analysis of Competency to Stand Trial

博士论文研究：少年法庭青春的（解）构：受审能力分析

• 批准号: 0617442
• 负责人: Marjorie Zatz
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: Arizona State University
• 依托单位国家: 美国
• 项目类别: Standard Grant
• 财政年份: 2006
• 资助国家: 美国
• 起止时间: 2006-09-01 至 2008-02-29
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=0617442&HistoricalAwards=false
• 关键词: Doctoral; Dissertation; Research; De; constructing

Investigators: Marjorie Katz and Angela Harvey Doctoral Dissertation Research: (De)constructing Youthfulness in Juvenile Court: An Analysis of Competency to Stand Trial# 0617442Project AbstractCompetency to Stand Trial (CST) is a legal concept that until recently was only relevant in criminal courts. CST is generally defined as a defendant's ability to consult with his or her attorney and understand the court proceedings, including current charges. In Arizona, before being found delinquent, juveniles who commit crimes must be found competent to stand trial. If the juvenile court is based on the goal of rehabilitation and the perception of youth as less responsible, why is it necessary to adopt standards that ensure a defendant is competent to stand trial? In fact, one might argue that the very construct of competency to stand trial does not make sense in a court where youth are adjudicated rather than convicted and are not even granted all the constitutional rights given to adults. By ensuring youth are competent to stand trial, the court may be realigning the juvenile court to be more similar to the criminal court, which may introduce greater punitiveness to juvenile court dispositions. This study examines how court actors (judicial officers, defense attorneys, and prosecutors) understand and construct youths' competency to stand trial in Maricopa County (Phoenix) juvenile courts, and the impact this early decision has on case processing. Specifically, my research questions are: 1) What are the predictors of the competency decision? 2) How do court officials make the decision to request a competency evaluation for youth? What are the characteristics of the youth and the offense that court officials utilize to make the request? 3) How are court actors socialized within the court community to distinguish between competent and incompetent youth? What are the common characteristics of youth court actors utilize to request competency evaluations and in the judicial officers' case, the characteristics utilized to make a final competency decision? 4) What are the consequences of the competency decision? Do youth differ in their dispositions based on the competency distinction? The first and fourth research questions are answered through the quantitative analysis of juvenile offense and offender data (e.g. offense, prior record, ethnicity, sex, family structure, socioeconomic status, gang membership, and school achievement, age, IQ, mental illness diagnosis, competency outcome, and disposition) available through the statewide Juvenile Online Tracking System. The second and third research questions are answered through observing competency hearings and interviewing court officials. This project contributes to the socio-legal knowledge of courtroom decision-making in three ways. First, since this literature is predominantly focused on the sentencing decision, as opposed to entry-point decisions, this project will enhance our understanding of how the pool of court cases is established and therefore, how biases and inequities may enter the juvenile justice process. Second, much of the juvenile court decision-making literature relies only on quantitative research, which is poorly suited for understanding the interaction of contextual and individual-level variables in the decision-making process. In contrast, this project uses mixed methods: statistical models to predict competency decision-making and case dispositions (research questions 1 and 4), and observations of competency hearings and interviews with court officials to reach a deeper understanding of how court actors construct competency as well as how they use this information in deciding on juveniles' cases (research questions 2 and 3). Third, it will be the first empirical study to examine how court actors evaluate competency and use this evaluation in their deliberations about youths' cases. In addition to contributing to our understanding of courtroom decision-making, this study promises to have a broader, practical impact. Since the competency legislation is relatively new (enacted in 2001) in Arizona, the results of this study will be utilized to directly impact policy decisions at the juvenile court level. This project will assist juvenile courts in understanding both the indirect (e.g. potential disparities between those found competent and those found incompetent) and direct (e.g. county, state, and federal expenditures, youth dispositions) effects of the competency decision for youth and administration. In particular, the study will help juvenile courts reduce racial/ethnic, class and gender inequities in case processing.

调查人员：Marjorie Katz和Angela Harvey博士论文研究：(De)在少年法庭构建青春：受审能力分析#0617442项目摘要受审能力(CST)是一个法律概念，直到最近才与刑事法庭相关。CST通常被定义为被告与他或她的律师协商并了解法庭程序的能力，包括当前的指控。在亚利桑那州，在被判有罪之前，犯罪的青少年必须被认定有能力接受审判。如果少年法庭是基于改造的目标和认为年轻人不那么负责任的看法，为什么有必要采取确保被告有能力受审的标准？事实上，有人可能会争辩说，在一个对青少年进行审判而不是定罪，甚至没有赋予成年人宪法赋予的所有权利的法院里，受审资格的构造本身是没有意义的。通过确保青少年有能力受审，法院可能会重新调整少年法庭，使之更类似于刑事法庭，这可能会对少年法庭的处置带来更大的惩罚性。这项研究考察了法院行为者(司法官员、辩护律师和检察官)如何理解和构建青少年在马里科帕县(凤凰城)少年法庭受审的能力，以及这一早期裁决对案件处理的影响。具体地说，我的研究问题是：1)什么是能力决定的预测因素？2)法院官员如何做出要求对青年进行能力评估的决定？年轻人的特点是什么？法院官员用来提出请求的罪行是什么？3)法院人员如何在法院社区内社会化，以区分称职和不称职的年轻人？青年法院行为者请求能力评估的共同特征是什么？在司法官员的案件中，用于做出最终能力决定的特征是什么？4)能力决定的后果是什么？青年的性格是否因能力不同而有所不同？第一个和第四个研究问题是通过对全州青少年在线跟踪系统提供的青少年犯罪和罪犯数据(例如，犯罪、前科、种族、性别、家庭结构、社会经济地位、帮派成员和学业成绩、年龄、智商、精神疾病诊断、能力结果和性格)的量化分析来回答的。第二和第三个研究问题通过观察能力听证会和采访法院官员来回答。该项目从三个方面促进法庭决策的社会法律知识。首先，由于这一文献主要侧重于量刑决定，而不是起点决定，该项目将加强我们对法院案件池如何建立以及偏见和不平等如何进入少年司法程序的理解。其次，许多少年法庭决策文献只依赖于定量研究，这不适合于理解决策过程中背景变量和个人变量之间的相互作用。相比之下，该项目使用混合方法：统计模型预测能力决策和案件处置(研究问题1和4)，观察能力听证会和与法院官员的访谈，以更深入地了解法院行为者如何构建能力以及他们如何在裁决青少年案件时使用这些信息(研究问题2和3)。第三，这将是第一项实证研究，考察法院行为者如何评估能力，并在他们对青少年案件的审议中使用这种评估。除了有助于我们对法庭决策的理解外，这项研究还有望产生更广泛的实际影响。由于亚利桑那州的能力立法相对较新(2001年颁布)，这项研究的结果将被用来直接影响少年法院一级的政策决定。该项目将帮助少年法院了解青年和行政部门能力决定的间接影响(例如，被认定为有能力的人与被认为不称职的人之间的潜在差距)和直接影响(例如，县、州和联邦支出、青年的性格)。特别是，这项研究将帮助少年法院减少案件处理过程中的种族/族裔、阶级和性别不平等。