Life-sentenced juveniles: Public perceptions of risk and need for incarceration.

Pursuant to recent United States Supreme Court decisions in Miller v. Alabama (2012) and Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016), individuals convicted of crimes committed when they were younger than 18 and for which they received mandatory life sentences are entitled to new sentencing hearings. This study examined public perceptions of such individuals (life-sentenced juveniles, or LSJs). Study participants were 663 adults (52.3% male) ages 22-71 years (M = 36.00, SD = 11.46) recruited using Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Each participant received one of a possible four vignettes about a man who was incarcerated for a crime that occurred when he was 17 years old and subsequently sentenced to mandatory life in prison following conviction. Two variables (risk of harming others if released to the community, and circumstances of the crime) were manipulated in a 2 × 2 between-subjects design. Each participant read one vignette and then answered questions relating to appropriateness for release from prison. Results indicate that risk, but not circumstances of the crime, strongly influenced participants' views regarding resentencing. When the individual in the vignette was labeled as high risk, participants described him as less appropriate for release, more deserving of punishment, needing more rehabilitation, and more appropriate for specific and general deterrence. The circumstances of the crime had no effect on participants' responses. This may be important for various reasons, as applicable law does not explicitly identify risk as a consideration in juvenile resentencing. The nonetheless noteworthy empirical influence of risk on perceptions regarding LSJs is discussed in their implications for research, policy, and practice.

Appraising Jackson-based unrestorability to competence to stand trial: The demonstration model.

Under United States law, criminal prosecution may not proceed against a defendant who is incompetent to participate in this process. The vast majority of defendants who are adjudicated incompetent to stand trial (IST) will subsequently regain sufficient capacities to be adjudicated competent to stand trial (CST). However, a small subgroup of defendants do not show sufficient improvement in clinical functioning and functional-legal capacities to regain CST. Under Jackson v. Indiana (1972), such individuals should be adjudicated unrestorably IST, with associated actions (e.g., dropping of criminal charges, civil commitment, transfer to a less restrictive environment or released) specified under the particular jurisdictional statutes. But the present practices associated with the evaluation of unrestorability do not appear well supported by research. In particular, statutorily specified evaluative procedures are overly dependent on prediction in some instances and allow an unnecessarily long restoration period in others. In the present article, we propose and describe an alternative approach-the Demonstration Model-that would address both challenges, providing a more consistent and standard approach to assessing CST and the possibility that a defendant may not recover needed capacities within the foreseeable future. Implementation of this approach can potentially guide restoration planning and intervention, decrease unsupported reliance upon prediction in favor of observing and documenting the results of selected interventions, and provide legal decision-makers with clearer and more transparent evidence, while acknowledging the liberty interests of IST defendants set forth in Jackson. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).