Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making
- Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Editors
- Contributors
- Part I Introduction Chapters
- Part II Pretrial Phase Decision-Making
- Part III Trial Phase Decision-Making
- Part IV Postconviction Phase Decisions
- 28 Amenability to Treatment Evaluations
- 29 Choosing Between Life and Death
- 30 The Communication of Risk to Legal Decision-Makers
- 31 The Psychology of Parole Decision-Making
- 32 Probation Decision-Making
- 33 Decision-Making in Violence Risk Assessment
- Part V Other Legal Decision-Making
- Part VI Perspectives from the Field
- Part VII Conclusion
- Index
- References
28 - Amenability to Treatment Evaluations
Understanding Decision Points and New Information Regarding Assessment
from Part IV - Postconviction Phase Decisions
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 February 2024
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making
- Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Editors
- Contributors
- Part I Introduction Chapters
- Part II Pretrial Phase Decision-Making
- Part III Trial Phase Decision-Making
- Part IV Postconviction Phase Decisions
- 28 Amenability to Treatment Evaluations
- 29 Choosing Between Life and Death
- 30 The Communication of Risk to Legal Decision-Makers
- 31 The Psychology of Parole Decision-Making
- 32 Probation Decision-Making
- 33 Decision-Making in Violence Risk Assessment
- Part V Other Legal Decision-Making
- Part VI Perspectives from the Field
- Part VII Conclusion
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter will examine treatment amenability decisions in juveniles. The juvenile courts have long focused on rehabilitation instead of the punitive approach of the criminal system. A significant aspect of that process has been the determination of whether a given person is likely to be responsive to intervention or if the needs of society would best be served by placing the person in the criminal justice system. This chapter will examine the history of the use of amenability in the juvenile justice system, the various decision points for the use of the amenability-to-treatment construct, definitions and assessment technology for amenability, factors and processes that contribute to these decisions, and how this information is communicated to the court. In addition, the chapter focuses on what professional training is needed to perform such evaluations. Future research and policy implications are also discussed.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making , pp. 427 - 442Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2024
References
Abram, K. M., Teplin, L. A., Charles, D. R., et al. (2004). Posttraumatic stress disorder and trauma in youth in juvenile detention. Archives of General Psychiatry, 61(4), 403–410. https://doi.org/fktqt3.Google Scholar
Ambrosini, P. J. (2000). Historical development and present status of the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Age Children (K-SADS). Journal of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39(1), 49–58. https://doi.org/dr2mtw.Google Scholar
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
Angold, A., & Costello, J. (2000). The Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Assessment (CAPA). Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39(1), 49–58. https://doi.org/c535gd.Google Scholar
Benedek, E., & Schetky, D. (2002). Principles and practice of child and adolescent psychiatry. American Psychiatric Publishing.Google Scholar
Cauffman, E., & Stienberg, L. (2000). (Im)maturity of judgement in adolescence: Why adolescents may be less culpable than adults. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 18(6), 741–760. https://doi.org/dw7kns.Google Scholar
Cicchetti, D. (1984). The emergence of developmental psychopathology. Child Development, 55(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/dr27z4.Google Scholar
Colins, O. F., Vermeiren, R., Schuyten, G., Broekaert, E., & Soyez, V. (2008). Informant agreement in the assessment of disruptive disorders in detained minors in Belgium: A diagnosis-level and symptom-level examination. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 69(1), 141–148. https://doi.org/d7zf2x.Google Scholar
Dattilio, F. M., & Fromm, L. (2011). Juvenile delinquency and decertification. In Drogin, E. Y., Dattilio, F. M., Sadoff, R. L., and Gutheil, T. G. (Eds.), Handbook of forensic assessment: Psychological and psychiatric perspectives (pp. 227–253). Wiley.Google Scholar
Dierkhising, C. B., Ko, S. J., Woods-Jaeger, B., et al. (2013). Trauma histories among justice-involved youth: Findings from the National Child Traumatic Stress Network. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 4(1), 20274. https://doi.org/gjzkhv.Google Scholar
Ewing, C. P. (1990). Juveniles or adults? Forensic assessment of juveniles considered for trial in criminal court. Forensic Reports, 3, 3–13.Google Scholar
Folk, J. B., Ramos, L. M. C., Bath, E. P., et al. (2021). The prospective impact of adverse childhood experiences on justice-involved youth’s psychiatric symptoms and substance use. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 89(6), 483–498. https://doi.org/hvdp.Google Scholar
Graham v. Florida, 560, US 48 (2010).Google Scholar
Grisso, T. (2013). Forensic evaluation of juveniles (2nd ed.). Professional Resources Press.Google Scholar
Insel, C., Tabashneck, S., Shen, F. X., Edersheim, J. G., & Kinscherff, R. T. (2022). White paper on the science of late adolescence: A guide for judges, attorneys, and policy makers. Center for Law Brain and Behavior.Google Scholar
Kaufman, J., Birmaher, B., Brent, D., et al. (1997). Schedule for affective disorders and schizophrenia for school-aged children-present and lifetime version (K-SADS-PL): Initial reliability and validity data. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 36(7), 980–988. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-199707000-00021.Google Scholar
Kent v. United States, 383, US 541 (1966).Google Scholar
Kerig, P. K., & Becker, S. P. (2010). From internalizing to externalizing: Theoretical models of the processes linking PTSD to juvenile delinquency. In Egan, S. J. (Ed.), Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD): Causes, symptoms and treatment (pp. 33–78). Nova Science.Google Scholar
Kinscherff, R. T. (2016). Distinguishing and assessing treatment needs and amenability to rehabilitation. In Heilbrun, K., DeMatteo, D., & Goldstein, N. E. S. (Eds.), APA handbook of psychology and juvenile justice (pp. 385–404). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/hvdm.Google Scholar
Koenen, K. C., Fu, Q. J., Lyons, M. J., et al. (2005). Juvenile conduct disorder as a risk factor for trauma exposure and posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 18(1), 23–32. https://doi.org/bmk3pf.Google Scholar
Kraemer, H. C., Measelle, J. R., Ablow, J. C., et al. (2003). A new approach to integrating data from multiple informants in psychiatric assessment and research: Mixing and matching contexts and perspectives. American Journal of Psychiatry, 160(9), 1566–1577. https://doi.org/bjk8jm.Google Scholar
Lahey, B. B., Moffitt, T. E., & Caspi, A. (2003). Causes of conduct disorder and juvenile delinquency. Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Leistico, A-M. R., & Salekin, R. T. (2003). Testing the reliability and validity of the Risk, Sophistication-Maturity, and Treatment Amenability instrument (RST-I): An assessment tool for juvenile offenders. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 2(2), 101–117. https://doi.org/hvdq.Google Scholar
Loeber, R., Slot, N. W., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (2006). A three dimensional, cumulative developmental model of serious delinquency. In Wikstrom, P-O. H and Sampson, R. J (Eds.), The explanation of crime: Context, mechanism, and development (pp. 153–194). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
MacDougall, E., & Salekin, R. T. (2015). Amenability to treatment. In Cautin, R. L. & Lilienfeld, S. O. (Eds.), The encyclopedia of clinical psychology (pp. 1–6). John Wiley and Sons. https://doi.org/hvdr.Google Scholar
Martin, G. A. (1992). The delinquent and the juvenile court: Is there still a place for rehabilitation? University of Connecticut Law Review, 25, 57–88.Google Scholar
Miller v. State of Alabama, 567 US (2012).Google Scholar
Mills, K. L., Goddings, A-L., Clasen, L. S., Giedd, J. N., & Blakemore, S-J. (2014). The developmental mismatch in structural brain maturation during adolescence. Developmental Neuroscience, 36(3–4), 147–160. https://doi.org/f6cnvt.Google Scholar
Mulvey, E. P. (1984). Judging amenability to treatment in juvenile offenders. In Reppucci, D. N., Weithorn, L. A., Mulvey, E. P., & Monahan, J. (Eds.), Children, mental health, and the law (pp. 195–210). Sage.Google Scholar
Mulvey, E. P., & Iselin, A-M. R. (2008). Improving professional judgments of risk and amenability in juvenile justice. The Future of Children, 18(2), 35–57. https://doi.org/cdp6p2.Google Scholar
Mulvey, E. P., Steinberg, L., Fagan, J., et al. (2004). Theory and research on desistance from antisocial activity among serious adolescent offenders. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 2(3), 213–236. https://doi.org/bnk88k.Google Scholar
Reich, W. (2000). Diagnostic Interview for Children and Adolescents (DICA). Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 39(1), 59–66. https://doi.org/cfcc2k.Google Scholar
Roper v. Simmons, 543 US 551 (2005).Google Scholar
Salekin, R. T. (2004). Risk-Sophistication-Treatment-Inventory (RST-I) professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
Salekin, R. T. (2015). Forensic evaluation and treatment of juveniles: Innovation and best practice. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/hvdt.Google Scholar
Salekin, R. T. (2016). Psychopathy in children: Why should we care about grandiose-manipulative and daring-impulsive traits? British Journal of Psychiatry, 209, 189–191. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.115.179051.Google Scholar
Salekin, R. T., Rogers, R., & Ustad, K. L. (2001). Juvenile waiver to adult criminal courts: Prototypes for dangerousness, sophistication-maturity, and amenability to treatment. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7(2), 381–408. https://doi.org/bqx385.Google Scholar
Salekin, R. T., Tippey, J. G., & Allen, A. D. (2012). Treatment of conduct problem youth with interpersonal callous traits using mental models: Measurement of risk and change. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 30(4), 470–486. https://doi.org/f364cv.Google Scholar
Salekin, R. T., Yff, R. A., Neumann, C. S., Leistico, A-M. R., & Zalot, A. A. (2002). Juvenile transfer to adult courts: A look at the prototypes for dangerousness, sophistication-maturity, and amenability to treatment through a legal lens. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8(4), 373–410. https://doi.org/bt9fsk.Google Scholar
Sanislow, C. A., Pine, D. S., Quinn, K. J., et al. (2010). Developing constructs for psychological research: Research domain criteria. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 119(4), 631–639. https://doi.org/bgc6xf.Google Scholar
Schubert, C. A., Mulvey, E. P., Loughran, T. A., et al. (2010). Predicting outcomes for youth transferred to adult court. Law and Human Behavior, 34(6), 460–475. https://doi.org/dstff8.Google Scholar
Shaffer, D., Fisher, P., Lucas, C. P., Dulcan, M. K., & Schwab-Stone, M. E. (2000). NIMH Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children Version IV (IMH DISC-IV): Description, differences from previous versions, and reliability of some common diagnoses. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39(1), 28–38. https://doi.org/frcq9z.Google Scholar
Shaffer, D., Schwab-Stone, M., Fisher, P., et al. (1993). The Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children-Revised Version (DISC-R): I. Preparation, field testing, interrater reliability, and acceptability. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 32(3), 643–650. https://doi.org/dm64cm.Google Scholar
Shufelt, J. L., & Cocozza, J. J. (2006). Youth with mental health disorders in the juvenile justice system: Results from a multi-state prevalence study (pp. 1–6). National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice.Google Scholar
Teplin, L. A., Abram, K. M., McClelland, G. M., Dulcan, M. K., & Mericle, A. A. (2002). Psychiatric disorders in youth in juvenile detention. Archives of General Psychiatry, 59(12), 1133–1143. https://doi.org/dvjwpr.Google Scholar
Tillman, R., Geller, B., Craney, J. L., et al. (2003). Temperament and character factors in a prepubertal and early adolescent bipolar disorder phenotype compared to attention deficit hyperactive and normal controls. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology, 13(4), 531–543. https://doi.org/bfw3mz.Google Scholar
Wasserman, G. A., McReynolds, L. S., Lucas, C. P., Fisher, P., & Santos, L. (2002). The Voice DISC-IV with incarcerated male youths: Prevalence of disorder. Journal of the American Academy of child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 41(3), 314–321. https://doi.org/fn4q5g.Google Scholar
Wasserman, G. A., McReynolds, L. S., Schwalbe, C. S., Keating, J. M., & Jones, S. A. (2010). Psychiatric disorder, comorbidity, and suicidal behavior in juvenile justice youth. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(12), 1361–1376. https://doi.org/d7t279.Google Scholar
Weller, E. B., Weller, R. A., Fristad, M. A., Rooney, M. T., & Schecter, J. (2000). Children’s Interview for Psychiatric Syndromes (ChIPS). Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39(1), 76–84. https://doi.org/d9xmm4.Google Scholar
Weller, E. B., Weller, R. A., Rooney, M. T., & Fristad, M. A. (1999). Children’s Interview for Psychiatric Syndromes (ChIPS). American Psychiatric Press.Google Scholar