Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 11:40 am
Time: 11:40 am
Results for age of criminal responsibility
3 results foundAuthor: Kuper, Sarah Title: An Immature Step Backward for New Zealand's Youth Justice System? A Discussion of the Age of Criminal Responsibility Summary: This paper examines the age of criminal responsibility in New Zealand's youth justice system focusing primarily on the serious youth offender. Recent amendments to New Zealand's youth justice legislation -- the Chidlren Young Persons and their Families Act 1989, the prevalence of serious youth crime in New Zealand and the politicised nature of the debate surrounding it makes this a pressing issue. Children who commit serious offences pose a peculiar challenge to every criminal justice system. Children may commit adult crimes, but their immaturity and lack of understanding mean that they cannot be dealt with as small adults. This paper will provide the basis for an informed and principled critique of the current amendment to the age of criminal responsibility. Recent international, scientific and behavioural evidence will be summarised and linked to the discussion of the amendment. It will suggest how the system can work towards mitigating the affects of this legislation, suggesting that by increasing the jurisdiction to include 17 year olds, proving the Youth Court with the powers of the Family Court and having a qualitatively different approach towards youth at sentencing will provide for tangible reductions in offending and will protect the rights of these vulnerable serious child offenders. Details: Dunedin, NZ: University of Otago, School of Law, 2010. 87p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed March 11, 2011 at: http://www.otago.ac.nz/law/oylr/2010/Sarah_Kuper.pdf Year: 2010 Country: New Zealand URL: http://www.otago.ac.nz/law/oylr/2010/Sarah_Kuper.pdf Shelf Number: 120977 Keywords: Age of Criminal ResponsibilityJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile LawJuvenile Offenders (New Zealand)Serious Juvenile Offenders |
Author: The Royal Society Title: Brain Waves Module 4: Neuroscience and the law Summary: The human brain is not viewed in the same way as other organs. The brain holds the key to mind and behaviour, and so to most it has a ‘special’ status. The relatively young fi eld of neuroscience is the study of the brain and nervous system. Neuroscientists seek to determine how brain function affects behaviour. The law is concerned with regulating behaviour, and so it is reasonable to ask whether and if so how, neuroscience could, or should, inform the law. The Royal Society, the UK’s national academy of science, has sought here to set out where neuroscience might offer insights to the law, and current limits to its application. Many questions have been asked about what neuroscience might offer for the law. For instance, might neuroscience fundamentally change concepts of legal responsibility? Or could aspects of a convicted person’s brain help to determine whether they are at an increased risk of reoffending? Will it ever be possible to use brain scans to ‘read minds’, for instance with the aim of determining whether they are telling the truth, or whether their memories are false? It has been suggested that ‘for the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything.’ This report takes a different position: that discoveries in neuroscience (or in genetics or psychology) will not completely revolutionise the theory and practice of the law in the near future; but there are already some important practical implications of recent neuroscientifi c discoveries, which should impact on the law, and there will certainly be many more over the next few years. For example, fi ndings from neuroscience may raise questions over the age of criminal responsibility. Although the potential is at present unclear, it is possible that neuroscientifi c information could be used as part of risk assessments. It is also possible that imaging studies may in the not too distant future provide evidence of the nature of pain. This would be relevant to many civil cases, concerned with whether a claimant’s suffering and pain are real or exaggerated. In addition, neuroscience may also be used further to strengthen the diagnosis of ‘Shaken Baby Syndrome’ or ‘Non Accidental Head Injury’ (NAHI). While there are examples, such as those above, of where neuroscience may provide useful insights, it is worth sounding a note of caution: claims that murderers can be identifi ed by imaging studies of their brains, or that there is a gene for psychopathy or for violent or antisocial behaviour are completely wide of the mark. If neuroscience is to feed usefully into the law, there are a number of challenges to its use that must fi rst be overcome. Some of these might apply to the intersection of science and law more broadly; however this report has focused on neuroscience. The report makes a number of recommendations for bridging the gap between legal professionals and neuroscientists to better communicate relevant fi ndings; for training and education; and for building applied research capacity. Details: London: The Royal Society, 2011. 46p. Source: RS Policy document 05/11: Internet Resource: Accessed April 22, 2012 at http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/brain-waves/Brain-Waves-4.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/brain-waves/Brain-Waves-4.pdf Shelf Number: 125043 Keywords: Age of Criminal ResponsibilityCriminal BehaviorLegislationNeurosciencePedophilia |
Author: New York (State). Governor's Commission on Youth, Public Safety and Justice Title: Final Report of the Governor's Commission on Youth, Public Safety and Justice. Recommendations for Juvenile Justice Reform in New York State Summary: Governor Cuomo signed Executive Order 131 on April 9, 2014, to establish the Commission on Youth, Public Safety and Justice. He instructed this Commission to develop a concrete plan to raise the age of juvenile jurisdiction in the most effective and prudent manner possible, and to make other specific recommendations as to how New York State's juvenile and criminal justice systems could better serve youth, improve outcomes, and protect communities. The Commission was ordered to complete its work by December 31, 2014. Why "raise the age" now? Numerous developments have converged in recent years to forge a growing consensus for this and related reforms to New York State's juvenile justice system. In brief, at least seven key developments have brought us to this point where reform is both necessary and possible. Each of these developments is explored in greater detail in this report. First, experiences in states like Connecticut and Illinois that have raised the age of criminal responsibility recently have demonstrated that recidivism and juvenile crime rates overall can be lowered through evidence-based interventions that steer nonviolent youthful offenders out of the justice system and into family, mental health, or other needed services. These experiences have helped to reduce opposition to reform in this area by showing that public safety can actually be enhanced by such changes. As discussed more fully in Chapter seven, analysis of the efficacy of certain interventions shows substantial recidivism reductions among high risk offenders in New York State. In fact, analysis completed in support of this Commission found that implementation of a range of evidence-based services used in juvenile justice for New York's population of 16- and 17-year-old offenders would eliminate between 1,500 and 2,400 crime victimizations every five years as a result of these recidivism reductions. Second, extensive research on the significant negative impacts of incarceration on adolescents in adult jails and prisons has brought a sense of urgency for reform. Higher suicide rates, increased recidivism, and many other measures all suggest that both offenders and their communities are harmed by placing adolescents into adult jails and prisons. Third, New York's unique history of juvenile justice has created a pressing reason for reform now. Despite a proud early history in this area, New York State now stands as one of only two states in the country that have set the age of criminal responsibility at age 16. That single fact has become a rallying cry for the current reform movement in this State, led the State's Chief Judge to urge legislative action, and inspired the Governor's initiative to appoint this Commission. Fourth, the impacts of processing all 16- and 17-year-olds in the criminal justice system fall disproportionately on young men of color. Young men of color are substantially over-represented among youth who are arrested at age 16 or 17 and who end up incarcerated as a result of the offense. Those impacts are felt not only by the young men themselves, but also by communities of color around the State. Fifth, scientific research into brain development has revealed only very recently that portions of our brains, including the region governing impulse control, develop far later than expected--after adolescence and as late as one's early to mid-20s. This research has demonstrated that adolescents do not have fully developed faculties of judgment or impulse control. It has also shown that adolescents respond more fruitfully to efforts to rehabilitate them and put them on the right track. Adolescence is a time of substantial development and provides real opportunity to harness the many assets youth possess in support of a positive life trajectory. Sixth, the research cited above has, in turn, undergirded several opinions from the U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts restricting the nature and scope of state and local governments' punishment of adolescent offenders on the ground that such offenders are both less culpable criminally and more susceptible to fruitful rehabilitation because of their still-developing brains. Those decisions have both resulted from and encouraged reform efforts across the country to improve the juvenile justice laws to reduce unnecessary incarceration and improve rehabilitative programming. Finally, this shifting view of adolescent offenders has coincided with, and arguably been facilitated by, a steady and significant decrease in violent crimes committed by youthful offenders since the 1990s. That reduction in crime has replaced outsized fears of young "super predators" with a more thoughtful focus on targeted criminal justice interventions to reduce recidivism without simply expanding costly incarceration. For all of these reasons, the Commission has the wind at its back in drafting this plan for raising the age of juvenile jurisdiction and reforming the juvenile justice system in other respects. The Commission's recommendations reflect a balanced approach that incorporates the wisdom and experiences of law enforcement, probation officers, criminal defense attorneys, policy advocates, service providers, local and State officials, and youth and their parents affected by the current system. Partly as a result of this balanced approach, the Commission's members support these recommendations unanimously and without reservation. Details: Albany: The Commission, 2014. 176p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 12, 2017 at: http://www.njjn.org/uploads/digital-library/ReportofCommissiononYouthPublicSafetyandJustice_0%20(1).pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.njjn.org/uploads/digital-library/ReportofCommissiononYouthPublicSafetyandJustice_0%20(1).pdf Shelf Number: 144817 Keywords: Administration of Juvenile JusticeAge of Criminal ResponsibilityJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersYouthful Offenders |