146 f> Court and the Legal System—-Juvenile Forensicssame as adult offenders, especially those charged with violent crimes. This begs two
questions: If you are going to hold a juvenile accountable as an adult, then should
the juvenile receive the same rights as an adult? Second, what are the relationships
that exist between children's responsibilities and children's rights? The Supreme
Court said that with the lowering of the age of responsibility, due process should be
present in the juvenile justice system (Fritsch & Hemmens, 1995). A major reason
for the courts granting juveniles more rights is the belief that because of their age
and inexperience they lack the ability and/or capacity to protect their own best
interests (Reppucci & Crosby, 1993).
In Kent v. United States (1966), the Supreme Court outlined the procedures for
using waivers and extended several due process rights to juveniles that are involved
in the waiver process. The waiver hearing must be a full hearing in which the
juvenile has the right to have counsel present (Fritsch & Hemmens, 1995).
When determining the psychological age of responsibility, one cannot base the
answer on a decision from a court, such as the legal age of responsibility. The age of
responsibility differs from state to state, but federal law regards juveniles as adults at
the age of 16. In Thompson v. Oklahoma (1988), the Supreme Court ruled that the
Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibited the execution of a person
who was under the age of 16 at the time of the offense. According to Stanford v.
Kentucky (1989) and IVilkins v. Missouri (1989), executions are legal for crimes
committed by juveniles ages 16 and 17 years. Sixteen is now the constitutional age
of responsibility for capital punishment purposes. According to the Supreme Court,
whatever type of environment a juvenile comes from, the legal age of responsibility
is still 16 years (L. Wrightsman ct al., 1994; Thompson v. Oklahoma, 1988).
The law has long recognized that children are less mature and less capable than
adults in many legal areas. The law, however, is not clear as to what degree certain
capacities of responsibility vary with chronological age. For example, as we get older
are we more responsible for our actions? The law is also unclear as to how levels of
cognitive and socioemotional development affect levels of responsibility (Woolard,
Reppucci, & Redding, 1996). When a juvenile court judge sends a youth to the
criminal court, the youth is then supposed to meet the adult standard of respon-
sibility. The adult standard of responsibility includes the ability to make informed
decisions. This requires "competence." Woolard and her colleagues (1996) indicate
that competence generally refers to the knowledge and abilities of a person to ex-
press him-/herself under ideal circumstances. The law, however, is only concerned
about the youths capacities in the context of the particular legal act the juvenile was
accused of committing. Thus, the law is more interested in the actions of individuals
rather than their competence.
Psychologists maintain that a person can learn from his or her mistakes and suc-
ceed in life if placed in the right environment. It would be ideal for the courts,
when holding a juvenile offender accountable, to consider if the juvenile had
both a cognitive meaning (understanding impact of their behavior on the victim)
and a behavioral meaning (taking action to make things right) for their conduct