The Mental Health Paradigm and the MacArthur Study: Emerging Issues Challenging the Competence of Juveniles in Delinquency Systems

Abstract

Understanding the factors that impact a juvenile's adjudicative competence in delinquency and criminal proceedings today requires some familiarity with mental illness, mental retardation, and developmental immaturity. Current research and studies shed new light on these factors that juvenile advocates, prosecutors, judges, and policymakers must routinely confront. This article discusses some of the issues involved in competency determinations of juveniles awaiting trial; addressing both the more traditional factors, such as mental illness and mental retardation, and some of the more recent studies and literature identifying developmental immaturity as an emerging basis for challenging the competency of juveniles to stand trial.Juvenile justice systems routinely presume that adolescents accused of delinquent or criminal misconduct are competent to stand trial. Adults charged with criminal misconduct are also presumed to be competent. Competency requires that citizens accused of criminal misconduct understand the charges against them, have rudimentary understanding of the court process, be able to understand and answer questions posed to them by their counsel, and be able to make decisions about their trial such as whether to testify, and whether to accept or reject plea bargains.