Adolescent Brain Development - the Youth Advocacy Division

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Adolescent Brain Development Quick Reference Relevant Cases GRAHAM v. FLORIDA (2010) In Graham, the Supreme Court declared life without parole sentences for nonhomicide offenders under age 18 unconstitutional. This decision marked the first time that the court declared a non-capital punishment to be cruel and unusual for an entire category of offenders. Although the holding of Graham arguably does not apply directly in Massachusetts, much of the language is broad enough that it can apply to juveniles who committed homicides as well as other offenses. Notably, there is language indicating that life without parole sentences may not be appropriate for juveniles who “did not kill or intend to kill”, Graham v. Florida, No. 08-7412, slip. op. at 18, 560 U.S. __ (2010), as well as other language noting that “juvenile offenders cannot with reliability be classified among the worst offender” Id. at 17 (quoting Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 853 (1988)) and that “[a]n offender’s age is relevant to the 8 th amendment, and criminal procedure laws that fail to take defendants’ youthfulness into account at all would be flawed.” Id. at 25. The court also noted that “[b]ecause ‘[t]he age of 18 is the point where society draws the line for many purposes between childhood and adulthood,’ those who were below that age when the offense was committed may not be sentenced to life without parole for a nonhomicide crime.” Id. at 24 (quoting Roper v. Simmons 543 U.S. at 574 (2005)) ROPER v SIMMONS (2005) The March 2005 Supreme Court ruling in Roper finally outlawed the death penalty for juvenile offenders. Though the majority opinion did not specifically mention recent scientific studies regarding differences between the adolescent brain and the adult brain, the American Psychological Association (APA) submitted a brief to the court in regards to the recent developments. Significantly, the scientific evidence presented by the APA was not challenged by either side, something that had been done in prior decisions regarding the juvenile death penalty. ATKINS v VIRGINIA (2002) Atkins was the Supreme Court case that outlawed the death penalty for mentally retarded offenders, and set in motion the ruling that was decided in Roper. Atkins is perhaps the most relevant case toward adolescent brain development specifically, as it the practice of executing mentally retarded offenders was declared unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment (Cruel & Unusual Punishment). Justice Stevens delivered the Court’s Opinion, specifically noting that “because of [mentally retarded persons’] disabilities in areas of reasoning, judgment, and control of their impulses, however, they do not act with the level of moral culpability that characterizes the most serious adult criminal conduct.” With adolescent brain development studies demonstrating that most adolescents do not fully develop the parts of the brain that deal specifically with reasoning, weighing of long-term goals, and instead tend to use the part of the brain responsible for making “gut reactions,” the Atkins case has significant implications. PATTERSON v TEXAS (2002) In the case of Patterson v Texas, the Declaration of Ruben C. Gur, Ph.D. was submitted in appeals to bolster the argument that the defendant, a juvenile at the time of the accused crime, did not have a fully developed brain, and therefore was less culpable. The decision stated in part that “the evidence is strong that the brain does not cease to mature until the early 20s in those relevant parts that govern impulsivity, judgment, planning for the future, foresight of consequences, and other characteristics that make people morally culpable.” Dr. Gur’s findings were reiterated in the petition for writ of certiorari. The ruling on Patterson was held however, and the accused was executed by the State of Texas in August, 2002. THOMPSON v OKLAHOMA (1988) Thompson was the Supreme Court case where the age limit for the death penalty was officially moved up to 16. Although MRI technology was unavailable to demonstrate scientific reasoning for different brain development, the Thompson case is still vital as the court differentiated the culpability of a 15-year old from that of an adult in the context of a “heinous crime.” The decision on Thompson played a critical role as precedent for the findings in Roper.
Adolescent Brain Development Annotated Bibliography I. Quick Reference Juvenile Defense Network, Fact Sheet Juvenile Defense Network, Relevant Cases Juvenile Defense Network, Annotated Bibliography Juvenile Defense Network, Experts List (Draft) Juvenile Defense Network, Adolescent Brain Development 2006 Mailing Coalition for Juvenile Justice, A Developmental Framework for Juvenile Cases II. News Articles Stephanie Chen, States Rethink ‘Adult Time for Adult Crime’, CNN, January 15, 2010, http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/01/15/connecticut.juvenile.ages/index.html (last visited Apr. 22, 2010). • Discusses state efforts to raise age of automatic adult court jurisdiction, focusing on Connecticut, which changed age from 16 to 17. Also quotes psychologist Laurence Steinberg comparing the teenage brain to “a car with a good accelerator but a weak brake.” Jeffrey Rosen, The Brain on the Stand, N.Y. TIMES, March 11, 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/magazine/11Neurolaw.t.html (last visited Apr. 22, 2010). • Discusses the use of neuroscience in criminal law generally and explores debate over the relevance of neuroscience to law. Includes interviews with a lot of the experts who are at the forefront of brain science as it applies to juvenile justice. Pages 3-4 of Section III include discussion of psychologist Ruben Gur’s expert testimony and the use of “neurolaw” in Roper. Ruben C. Gur, Brain Maturation and the Execution of Juveniles, THE PENN. GAZETTE, January/February 2005. • Article written by a psychiatrist describing the use of brain research in advocating against imposition of the death penalty on older adolescents. • “The evidence now is strong that the brain does not cease to mature until the early 20s in those relevant parts that govern impulsivity, judgment, planning for the future, foresight of consequences, and other characteristics that make people morally culpable. Therefore, from the perspective of neural development, someone under 20 should be considered to have an underdeveloped brain. Additionally, since brain development in the relevant areas goes in phases that vary in rate and is usually not complete before the early to mid-20s, there is no way to state with any scientific reliability that an individual 17-year-old has a fully matured brain (and should be eligible for the most severe punishment), no matter how many otherwise accurate tests and measures might be applied to him at the time of his trial for capital murder.” (*4)
Page 1 and 2: Adolescent Brain Development A Yout
Page 3 and 4: VII. Legal Motions from MA 1. Motio
Page 5: Scientific Backing • Myelination
Page 9 and 10: III. Academic Articles Elizabeth Ca
Page 11 and 12: Margo Gardner & Laurence Steinberg,
Page 13 and 14: activated the amygdala, a brain cen
Page 15 and 16: Most of the materials for Sullivan
Page 17 and 18: GOLDBERG, ELKHONON Ph.D. Clinical P
Page 19 and 20: Limbic System Adolescent Brain Deve
Page 21 and 22: Adolescent Brain Development Implic

Adolescent Brain Development - the Youth Advocacy Division

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?