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

研究：（二）建构少年法庭的青春：出庭能力分析项目摘要出庭能力（CST）是一个直到最近才与刑事法院相关的法律概念。刑事服务通常被定义为被告咨询律师和了解法庭程序的能力，包括当前的指控。在亚利桑那州，犯罪的青少年在被认定为犯罪之前，必须被认定有能力接受审判。如果少年法庭的目标是让青少年改过自新，并且认为青少年不负责任，那么为什么有必要采用确保被告有能力受审的标准呢？事实上，有人可能会说，在一个青少年是被裁决而不是被定罪，甚至没有被授予成年人所享有的所有宪法权利的法庭上，出庭受审能力的概念是没有意义的。通过确保青少年有能力接受审判，法院可能会重新调整少年法庭，使其更类似于刑事法庭，这可能会给少年法庭的处置带来更大的惩罚。本研究考察了法庭行为者（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，以及这种早期决定对案件处理的影响。具体来说，我的研究问题是：1)胜任力决策的预测因素是什么？2)法院是如何决定对青少年进行能力评价的？法院官员提出这一要求的青少年和犯罪行为的特点是什么？3)法院行为者如何在法院社区内进行社会化，以区分有能力和无能力的青年？青年法庭行为者在请求能力评估时所使用的共同特征是什么？在司法官员的案件中，所使用的共同特征是什么？4)胜任力决策的结果是什么？年轻人的性格是否因能力的不同而不同？第一个和第四个研究问题是通过全州青少年在线跟踪系统提供的青少年犯罪和罪犯数据（如犯罪、前科、种族、性别、家庭结构、社会经济地位、帮派成员、学习成绩、年龄、智商、精神疾病诊断、能力结果和处置）的定量分析来回答的。第二个和第三个研究问题是通过观察能力听证会和采访法院官员来回答的。该项目在三个方面有助于法庭决策的社会法律知识。首先，由于该文献主要关注量刑决定，而不是入门点决定，因此该项目将增强我们对法院案件池如何建立的理解，从而了解偏见和不公平如何进入少年司法程序。其次，许多少年法院决策文献仅依赖于定量研究，这对于理解决策过程中情境变量和个人层面变量的相互作用是不合适的。相比之下，本项目使用混合方法：统计模型预测胜任力决策和案件处置（研究问题1和4），观察胜任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胜任力，以及他们如何在决定青少年案件时使用这些信息（研究问题2和3）。第三，这将是第一个实证研究，以检验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之外，这项研究有望产生更广泛的实际影响。由于胜任力立法在亚利桑那州相对较新（2001年颁布），本研究的结果将用于直接影响少年法院层面的政策决定。该项目将帮助少年法庭了解能力判定对青少年和行政部门的间接影响（例如，被认定有能力的人和被认定没有能力的人之间的潜在差异）和直接影响（例如，县、州和联邦支出、青少年倾向）。特别是，这项研究将有助于少年法庭减少案件处理中的种族/民族、阶级和性别不平等。

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.