� “Juvenile” - person -not completed 18 years

� Biologically - transformation of adolescent beginning with puberty to physically mature adults

� Psychologically – understood in terms of the developmental tasks - central task of achieving a personal identity

� Sociologically- in terms of their status within society - transitional period in the attainment of adulthood

� In time child is taught about the consequence of his/her actions/ take responsibility

� The age when children are expected to develop and display socially acceptable, morally and legally appropriate behavior varies display socially acceptable, morally and legally appropriate behavior varies

� Society is redefining the criteria and the timeframe by when are children expected to be responsible

� Society making rules for upbringing them in an enriching environment

� Society is making various laws and acts towards nurturance and containing those in conflict with law

� Juvenile delinquency - participation in illegal behavior by minors (juveniles).

� Legal systems prescribe specific procedures for dealing with juveniles, such as juvenile detention centers, and courtsdealing with juveniles, such as juvenile detention centers, and courts

� From a psychological perspective,

� important to understand what juvenile offending entails,

� what are the reasons for such behavior,

� whether some of ‘delinquent’ behavior could actually be just ‘normative ‘behaviour?

� According to the Juvenile Justice, (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 as amended in 2011, “ A juvenile in conflict with the law means a person who is alleged to have committed an offence and has not completed committed an offence and has not completed eighteenth year of age as on the date of commission of such offence”. “Offence means an offence punishable under any law for the time being in force “

� Minimum age of exemption for prosecution and punishment is based on mens rea

� Criminal responsibility (India)- 7 years (IPC sec 82, 1860

� 8 to 12 years (Sec 83 of IPC): “Nothing is an offence .. > 7 years and < 12 years…not attained .. understanding to years and < 12 years…not attained .. understanding to judge nature & consequences ..”

� No such immunity between 12 to 18 years

� Juvenile booked for criminal acts - cannot be treated or sentenced in the same manner as adults

� Article 37 of CRC- Capital punishment/ Life imprisonment without possibility of release, cannot be imposed < 18 yrs

� Determination of juvenility based on age at date of offence

� Debate was thought to be between advocates of a more rehabilitation-focused juvenile system and those who see proportionality and retribution as equally (or more) legitimate goals that must be achieved when dealing with serious juvenile crime

� Proportionality between the seriousness of the harm, the culpability of the actor and the severity of punishment constitutes the foundation of criminal sanctions

� What if the ‘actor’ is not culpable !! (then justice is not being served)

� ‘Mature’ - culture, convenience, historical precedent

� Aristotle- 21 (completed three 7-year stages of youth dev)

� Middle Ages- 21 (wearing a full suit of armor)� Middle Ages- 21 (wearing a full suit of armor)

� Neuroscience – frontal lobe – executive functioning- 25 yrs

� Conventionally – its known that adol. are reckless

� Supported by research on developmental changes in impulsivity and self-management

� Firstly- synaptic pruning in PFC – during mid-adolescence -basic abilities and logical reasoningadolescence -basic abilities and logical reasoning

� Secondly- changes in the dopamine related neurons -limbic region- (emotions, rewards & punishments) and prefrontal regions (executive functions)

� Dopamine- very active at this stage, critical role in experiencing pleasure, ~pleasure seeking behaviour

� Thirdly, increased myelination of neurons in prefrontal cortex, continues till early adulthood

� Better connectivity in PFC - important for higher order cognitive functions (planning ahead, weighing order cognitive functions (planning ahead, weighing risk and rewards and complicated decision making)

� Fourthly, better connectivity between PFC and limbic regions (self control + emotional regulation)

� Reward centres are hypersensitive, more in anticipation than on getting reward

� This hypersensitivity is more in presence of peer

� Heightened sensitivity to anticipated reward, Heightened sensitivity to anticipated reward, coupled with immaturity of centres of higher cognitive functioning implicated in judgment leads to irrational behaviours in group

� Adult brain - extensive connections within the brain, not hypersensitive to anticipation of a reward, less influenced by presence of peer and are geared to function as ‘adults’

Peer influence

Poor risk assessment

More weight to short term consequence

of choice

Deviant conduct

Sensation seeking

of choice

Poor impulse control

� Is the mind mature to understand the implications and most importantly act in accordance

� Depends on : basic cognitive functions, higher order cognitive functions (impulse control, judgment, planning ahead) and emotional regulation ahead) and emotional regulation

� Neuroscience – areas of brain associated with basic cognitive capacity (intelligence) for holding information and assimilating them is the first one to mature.

� Emotional intelligence which involves higher order thinking and impulse control are the last to evolve by late adolescence and early adulthood.

� Adolescents mature intellectually before they mature socially or emotionally

� Different parts of the brain mature along different timetables

� Executive thinking may not reach its peak until 25 but most function adequately at an earlier age--probably between 16 and 21. between 16 and 21.

� Parts that govern impulsivity, judgment, planning for the future, foresight of consequences, and other characteristics that make people morally culpable, continue till early adulthood, between 21 and 25.

� Intelligence and adult ways to self-regulate all converge towards adult capacity closer to the age of 21 years which could be defined as ‘neurobiological’ age of maturity

� (1987) 14 juveniles on death row

� 9 had major neuropsychological disorders

� 7 had psychotic disorders since early childhood

� 12 had IQ scores under 90.

� 11 had below average reading abilities and another three had learned to read only after arriving on death rowlearned to read only after arriving on death row

� 12 reported having been physically or sexually abused, including five who were sodomized by relatives

� 2003, Study of traumatic experiences in the lives of death row juvenile offenders (US)

� 74% experienced family dysfunction

� 60% were victims of abuse and/or neglect

� 43% had a diagnosed psychiatric disorder� 43% had a diagnosed psychiatric disorder

� 38% suffered from substance addictions

� 38% lived in poverty

� > 30% of death row juvenile offenders had experienced six > distinct areas of childhood trauma (avg 4/ offender)

� Most C/ A do not face even one of these

� Such mitigating evidence was presented to juries in fewer than half of the offenders’ trials.

� Reducing the age has brought a lot of adolescents, even for minor misdemeanors into the adult court

� Are starting to rethink the wisdom of sending 13-year-olds to spend hard time among older criminals.

� Youths (previously tried as adults)- 34 % more likely to commit a crime again (than those exposed to Juvenile justice system.

� Not only do young offenders treated as adults reoffend sooner and more frequently, they're also more likely to go on to commit violent crimes.

� Useful to predict reoffending: instrumental voilence Vs impulsive emotional retaliation

� Factors to evaluate:

� Appreciation of wrongfulness, ability to conform to law,

� Developmental course of aggression and impulsivity,

� Psychosocial immaturity (incl susceptibility to peer pressure, risk-taking, and ability to empathize),

� Environmental circumstances, peer group norms,

� Out-of-character action, mental illness, and

� Reactive attitudes toward the offense

� Risk assessment is central to many decision in criminal justice process.

� In Ireland, Young Persons Probation Services use a general risk assessment scale named ‘The Youth Level of Service/ Case Management Inventory’ Level of Service/ Case Management Inventory’ (YLS/CMI)

� Such scale is required to be filled every six months

� Help identify a range of factors ranging from psychopathy to socio-economic problems

� To plan appropriate intervention plan but also help measure changes in needs and risk of reoffending over time

� Culpability: Acting with free will, undertaking an action with criminal purpose and having full moral agency (ability to make moral and ethical decisions)

� Are adolescents culpable? Should they be excused? Receive mitigated sentence

Excuse- complete exculpation (binary judgement)� Excuse- complete exculpation (binary judgement)

� Mitigation – places culpability on a continuum

� Mitigation –

� Decision making capacity being impaired

� Compelling external circumstances

� Act out of character, not a product of bad character

� Adolescents level of cognitive and psychosocial development are likely to shape their choices, different from adults. Don’t have competent decision making capacity

� Adolescents’ decision-making capacities are immature and their autonomy constrained, they are immature and their autonomy constrained, they are more vulnerable than are adults to the influence of coercive circumstances that mitigate culpability for all persons, such as provocation, duress, threat, peer influence

� Adolescents are in process of forming their personal identity, thus criminal behaviour is less likely than that of an adult to reflect bad character

� Balance age of the juvenile and culpability while factoring in developmental processes and socio-cultural operatives

� Growing up is a process, not a birthday

� Adolescents have significant neurological � Adolescents have significant neurological deficiencies that result in stark limitations of judgment.

� Risk factors (neglect, abuse, poverty, etc.) can set the psychological stage for violence

� Adolescents are less morally culpable for their actions than competent adults and are more capable of change and rehabilitation

� Punishment for minors is contrary to the idea of fairness

� Our justice system accords the greatest punishments to the most blameworthy

� Juvenile offender, developmentally immature, should be viewed as less culpable than a comparable adult offenderviewed as less culpable than a comparable adult offender

� But not as an actor without any responsibility for the crime

� Juvenile offenders should be held responsible

� a strong message about the costs of crime

� community is protected from those who might offend again

� Policy based on mitigation can achieve these goals while it recognizes that youths are less culpable than adults

� Juvenile legislation (India) –

� Balance ‘welfarism’ with ‘justice’,

� Giving the social aspect of juvenile due regard

� ‘Best interest of the child’- central guiding principle

� Some advocate waiver system (those in grey area, by their age or the nature of crime) their age or the nature of crime)

� Transfer to the adult criminal justice system

� Other countries (methods of transfer)

� Expanded the set of crimes that qualified for transfer

� Statutory exclusion

� prosecutorial discretion

� Transfer is not viable option (Juvenile not as culpable & it does not reduce juvenile crime or recidivism)

� Adult criminal system is not geared for sensitively handling adolescents

� Further isolation, stigmatization and desocialization

� Susceptible to further violence

� Need to strengthen the existing juvenile justice system

� Upgrading the existing Special Homes under the JJ Act with more specialized and individualized approaches

� Aims of Juvenile justice

� treatment of children in conflict with the law

� Address the root causes of offending behaviour and

� Measures to prevent such behaviour.

Emphasis on prevention and rehabilitation� Emphasis on prevention and rehabilitation

� Launching awareness-raising campaigns and developing national action plans for juveniles at risk and young people in conflict with the law

� Activities towards developing training curricula and conducting training courses for the JCL

� Access to mental health and psychiatric services

� Assessment of risk factors

� Intensive counseling, family counseling, life skills education

� Improving detention condition for juveniles through refurbishing specialized centres, refurbishing specialized centres,

� Setting up filing systems and strengthening vocational and educational training programmes

� Establishing after care programme for juveniles released from closed institutions in collaboration with non-governmental community services

� Laurence Steinberg. Should the science of adolescent brain development inform public policy? Issues in science and technology.Spring 2002;67-78.

� Elizabeth S. Scott, Laurence Steinberg. Adolescent Development and the Regulation of Youth Crime. Juvenile Justice. Volume 18; Number 2;Fall; 2008.

� Elizabeth R. Sowell, Paul M. Thompson, Kevin D. Tessner, and Arthur W. Toga. Mapping Continued Brain Growth and Gray Matter Density Reduction in Dorsal Frontal Cortex: Inverse Relationships during Postadolescent Brain Maturation. The Journal of Neuroscience, 15 November 2001, 21(22): 8819-8829

� Gardner, Margo; Steinberg, Laurence. Peer Influence on Risk Taking, Risk Preference, and Risky Decision Making in Adolescence and Adulthood: An Experimental Study. Developmental Psychology, Vol 41(4), Jul 2005, 625-635

� Sowell, E.R., B.S. Peterson, et al. 2003. Mapping cortical change across the human life span. Nature Neuroscience 6(March):309–315

� Lewis, DO, Pincus, Bard, Richardson, Prichep, Feldman, Yeager. Neuropsychiatric, psychoeducational, and family characteristics of 14 juveniles condemned to death in the United psychoeducational, and family characteristics of 14 juveniles condemned to death in the United States. Am. J. of Psychiatry. 1988.145.

� Mallett, Chris. Socio-Historical Analysis of Juvenile Offenders on Death Row, 3 Juv. Corr. Mental Health Report. 2003. 65.

� Myers DL. The recidivism of violent youths in juvenile and adult court: A consideration of selection bias. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice. 2003;1(1):79–101.

� Thomas A. Loughran, Edward P. Mulvey et al. Differential Effects of Adult Court Transfer on Juvenile Offender Recidivism. Law Hum Behav. 2010 December; 34(6): 476–488.

� Fontaine, Reid Griffith. Social information processing, subtypes of violence, and a progressive construction of culpability and punishment in juvenile justice. ; International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, Vol 31(2), Mar, 2008. pp. 136-149

� Ash, Peter. But he knew it was wrong: Evaluating adolescent culpability. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Vol 40(1), Jan 1, 2012. pp. 21-32.

� Youth Justice Board (2000) Asset London: Youth Justice Board� Bonnie, R., Coughlin, A., & Jeffries, J. (Eds.).(1997). Criminal law. New York: Foundation Press.� Kadish, S. (1987).Excusing crime.California Law Review, 75, 257–296.� Morse, S. (1994). Culpability and control.Pennsylvania Law Review.142,1587–1660.