youths may be encouraged to increase their associa-
tion with prosocial peers. There is some evidence of
the effectiveness of MST in terms of reduction in
aggressive behavior, lower rearrest rates, and fewer
days of incarceration, with the benefits maintained for
as long as 5 years posttreatment.
As noted by Paul Frick and Eva Kimonis, the gen-
eral conclusions regarding intervention for CD are
that treatment is more effective with younger children,
who exhibit less severe conduct problems; treatment
effects do not generalize across settings; and it is dif-
ficult to sustain improvements over time. Bearing in
mind these concerns, future efforts should be directed
toward determining which treatments are the most
effective at different developmental stages and for
specific subtypes of youth.
In addition to developing and administering appro-
priate intervention strategies, efforts should also be
directed toward the prevention of CD symptoms.
Interventions focus on mental illness with the goal of
reducing or ameliorating impairment, whereas preven-
tion focuses on mental health with the goal of develop-
ing adaptive, prosocial functioning. Generally, prevention
programs do not address CD directly but address the
risk factors related to CD and target youths identified as
being at high risk for developing CD. Promising pre-
vention programs include early family-based interven-
tions that provide support and services to women
during and after pregnancy, school-based interventions
that provide additional intensive classroom programs,
and community-based interventions that provide
programs and activities in the community to promote
prosocial behavior. Some examples include the Triple-
P positive parenting program, the Fast Track program,
and the Incredible Years parenting program. Follow-up
studies with youths who received these types of inter-
ventions found that they resulted in less aggression,
fewer acting-out behaviors, lower arrest and recidivism
rates, and less severe criminal offenses.Zina Lee and Randall T. SalekinSee also Juvenile Offenders; Juvenile Offenders, Risk
Factors; Juvenile Psychopathy; Mental Health Needs of
Juvenile OffendersFurther Readings
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and
statistical manual of mental disorders(4th ed., text
revision). Washington, DC: Author.Kazdin, A. E. (1995). Conduct disorders in childhood and
adolescence(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kazdin, A. E. (2002). Psychosocial treatments for conduct
disorder in children and adolescents. In P. E. Nathan &
J. M. Gorman (Eds.),A guide to treatments that work
(2nd ed., pp. 57–85). New York: Oxford University Press.
Lynam, D. R. (1996). Early identification of chronic
offenders: Who is the fledgling psychopath?
Psychological Bulletin, 120,209–234.
Moretti, M. M., Emmrys, C., Grizenko, N., Holland, R.,
Moore, K., Shamsie, J., et al. (1997). The treatment of
conduct disorder: Perspectives from across Canada.
Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 42,637–648.
Salekin, R. T., & Frick, P. J. (2005). Psychopathy in children
and adolescence: The need for a developmental perspective.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33,403–409.CONFESSIONEVIDENCE
Confession evidence is highly potent, and its incrimi-
nating effects are difficult to erase. This entry
describes the impact of confessions on jury verdicts,
examines three concerns about the way in which
juries evaluate confession evidence, and considers the
steps that can be taken to ensure that jurors assess
such evidence appropriately.
In cases where a confession is disputed, a judge
determines the voluntariness and admissibility of
the confession during a preliminary hearing. In the
American criminal justice system, if a confession is
deemed voluntary, it is then submitted for consideration
to the jury. In some states, the jury is specially instructed
to make an independent judgment of voluntariness and
to disregard statements found to be coerced; in other
states, the jury receives no such instruction. Either way,
it is clear that jurors faced with evidence of a confession,
and the defendant’s claim that it was false, must deter-
mine the credibility and weight of that evidence in
reaching a verdict.
Mock jury studies have shown that confession evi-
dence has a greater impact on jury decision making than
other forms of human evidence, such as eyewitness
identification and character testimony. Confessions are
so difficult to overcome that mock jurors tend to trust
them even when it is not legally and logically appropri-
ate to do so. In a study that illustrates this point, Saul
Kassin and his colleague presented mock jurors
with one of three versions of a murder trial. In the136 ———Confession EvidenceC-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:41 PM Page 136