Profiles of juveniles with sex offense charges referred for competence evaluations.

Juveniles referred for adjudicative competence evaluations make up a subset of youth involved in the juvenile justice system. Among those referred for adjudicative competence evaluations, a significant number involve youth with current or past charges for sexual offenses. This study examines the profiles of youth with sexual offense charges who have been referred for competence evaluations at a state psychiatric hospital for children and adolescents. Differences between the characteristics of youth with and without sexual offenses were explored, and predictors of competence opinions were examined among the subset of youth with current or prior sexual charges (juveniles with sexual offenses, or JSOs). Findings indicated that youth with sexual offenses have several demographic, cognitive, clinical, and legal differences from youth without sexual offenses. Although youth with sexual offenses were less likely to be opined competent, presence of a sexual offense was not a predictor of competence opinions after controlling for other factors. Predictors of competence among JSOs were found to be similar to those among youth referred for competence evaluations in general. Primary diagnosis of an autism-related disorder was a unique predictor of being opined not competent among the JSO subgroup, but not the overall sample. Implications for practice, policy, and research are discussed.

Juveniles' competence to stand trial: a comparison of adolescents' and adults' capacities as trial defendants.

Abilities associated with adjudicative competence were assessed among 927 adolescents in juvenile detention facilities and community settings. Adolescents' abilities were compared to those of 466 young adults in jails and in the community. Participants at 4 locations across the United States completed a standardized measure of abilities relevant for competence to stand trial (the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool--Criminal Adjudication) as well as a new procedure for assessing psychosocial influences on legal decisions often required of defendants (MacArthur Judgment Evaluation). Youths aged 15 and younger performed more poorly than young adults, with a greater proportion manifesting a level of impairment consistent with that of persons found incompetent to stand trial. Adolescents also tended more often than young adults to make choices (e.g., about plea agreements) that reflected compliance with authority, as well as influences of psychosocial immaturity. Implications of these results for policy and practice are discussed, with an emphasis on the development of legal standards that recognize immaturity as a potential predicate of incompetence to stand trial.