![Sample our Behavioral Sciences journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110801/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Behavioral-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
Children and young people who kill do not always act with the mental acuity expected of someone who has reached full maturity, yet when they are charged with murder or manslaughter they are often tried as adults. This contradicts the basic principle of criminal responsibility that criminalisation is based upon moral blameworthiness. A conviction for murder requires at least a conscious appreciation of a real risk of death. Recent research by developmental neuroscientists shows that adolescence is a developmental stage and that the adolescent brain is not capable of the same level of reasoning expected in the average adult. This article suggests that the criminal justice system can adapt to these recent advances in knowledge via specific defences of a diminished capacity class, or by allowing evidence of general adolescent brain development to support defence arguments that a young accused did not form the mens rea required for murder.
Notes
1. Mark Soler, Dana Shoenberg and Marc Schindler, ‘Juvenile Justice: Lessons for a New Era’ (2009) 16 Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy 483, 492.
2. Lisa Micucci, ‘Responsibility and the Young Person’ (1998) 11 Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 277, 278.
3. Simon Bronitt and Bernadette McSherry, Principles of Criminal Law (LBC Information Services 2001) 147.
4. Andrew Simester and Warren Brookbanks, Principles of Criminal Law (3rd edn, Thomson Brookers 2007) 8.
5. Micucci (n 2) 285.
6. Anthony N. Doob and Michael Tonry, ‘Varieties of Youth Justice’ (2004) 31 Crime and Justice 1, 3.
7. See, e.g., Andrew Becroft, ‘Youth Justice – The New Zealand Experience: Past Lessons and Future Challenges’, paper presented to the Australian Institute of Criminology/NSW Department of Juvenile Justice Conference, 1–2 December 2003.
8. Doob and Tonry (n 6) 2.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid 15.
11. Micucci (n 2) 277.
12. See, e.g., Caroline Ball, ‘Youth Justice? Half a century of responses to youth offending’ (2004) Criminal Law Review 167, 168, in relation to the murder of Jamie Bulger by two ten year olds; Micucci (n 2) 277.
13. Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill 2006, Explanatory Note.
14. R v Rapira (2003) 20 CRNZ 396.
15. R v O’Brien (2003) 20 CRNZ 572.
16. Kim Taylor-Thompson, ‘States of Mind/States of Development’ (2003) 14 Stanford Law and Policy Review 143, 144.
17. Franklin E Zimring, ‘The Hardest of the Hard Cases: Adolescent Homicide in Juvenile and Criminal Courts’ (1999) 6 Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law 437, 437.
18. S. Asquith, “Justice, Retribution and Children” in A. Morris & H. Giller, eds., Providing Criminal Justice for Children (Edward Arnold, 1983) 7 at 14 cited in Micucci (n 2) 278.
19. Micucci (n 2) 281.
20. Crimes Act 1961 (NZ), s 22.
21. Allison Morris, ‘Youth Justice in New Zealand’ (2004) 31 Crime and Justice 243, 260.
22. Bronitt and McSherry (n 3) 151.
23. Heather Keating, ‘Reckless Children’ (2007) Criminal Law Review 546, 549–550.
24. See Andrew M Carter ‘Age Matters: The Case for a Constitutionalized Infancy Defense’ (2006) 54 University of Kansas Law Review 687.
25. Muncie, J Youth and Crime (2nd edn, Sage Publications Ltd 2004) 7.
26. Keating (n 23) 551.
27. David S Tanenhaus, ‘“Owing to the Extreme Youth of the Accused”: the changing legal response to juvenile homicide’ (2002) 92 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 641.
28. Soler, Shoenberg and Schindler (n 1) 484–485.
29. Ibid 486–487.
30. Sentencing and Parole Reform Act 2010 (NZ).
31. Andrew J Becroft, ‘Alternative Approaches to Sentencing’ speech delivered to the CMJA Triennial Conference, Canada, 12 September 2006.
32. Carter (n 24) 687–692.
33. Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 (NZ), s 272.
34. Crimes Act 1961 (NZ), s 167(a).
35. Crimes Act 1961 (NZ), s 167(b).
36. Taylor-Thompson (n 16) 158.
37. Ibid 158–159.
38. R v C, unreported, Court of Appeal, CA90/99, 24 June 1999, Henry, Anderson & Robertson JJ
39. R v Erstich (2002) 19 CRNZ 420; R v McCarthy, unreported, High Court, Auckland (T 981197). Nicholson J. It is important to note that in New Zealand the defence of provocation has since been repealed as from 8 December 2009.
40. R v Hancock & Shankland [1986] 1 All ER 641, [1986] AC 455 at 651, 465, per Lord Scarman.
41. See, e.g., R v Harney [1987] 2 NZLR 576.
42. Ibid 579.
43. R v Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396.
44. R v Caldwell [1982] AC 341.
45. R v G [2004] 1 AC 1034.
46. Ibid.
47. Ibid 1040.
48. Ibid.
49. Ibid 1055.
50. Keating (n 23) 547.
51. Taylor-Thompson (n 16) 159.
52. Ibid.
53. R v Rapira (2003) 20 CRNZ 396, 401.
54. Ibid 419.
55. Ibid 418.
56. Ibid.
57. Soler, Shoenberg and Schindler (n 1) 493.
58. Roper v Simmons 543 U.S. 551 (2005).
59. Roper v Simmons ibid; Atkins v Virginia 536 U.S. 304 (2002), in Soler, Shoenberg and Schindler (n 1) 494–495.
60. R v Reweti, unreported, High Court, Auckland (CRI 2005-92-14652). 6 September 2006. Winkelmann J, at [2].
61. Ibid [3].
62. Ibid [29].
63. Ibid [32]
64. Ibid [41].
65. Nicola Boyes, “It was murder, says father of man killed by concrete block” New Zealand Herald (8 July 2006) http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm? c_id=1&objectid=10390315 accessed 1 August 2011.
66. Reweti (n 60) [29]-[30].
67. Ibid [43].
68. Ibid [32].
69. R v Kriel, unreported, High Court, Whangarei (CRI 2008-027-2728). 23 March 2010. Asher J, at [4]-[5].
70. Ibid [11]-[13].
71. Ibid [25].
72. R v H T K, unreported, High Court, Whangarei (CRI 2008-027-002728). 9 December 2009. Rodney Hansen J, at [3].
73. Ibid [4].
74. Kriel (n 69) [25].
75. Ibid.
76. Laurence Steinberg, ‘Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice’ (2009) 5 Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 459, 471.
77. Beck Vass, ‘Liberty Templeman's killer revealed’ New Zealand Herald (20 February 2010) http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10 627405 accessed 1 August 2011.
78. ‘This is the face of Libby's murderer’ New Zealand Herald (25 February 2010) http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article. cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10628380 accessed 2 August 2011.
79. This claim seems to be at odds with the Judge's later finding that this was an aggravating factor in the offence.
80. Kriel (n 69) [57].
81. Ibid [59].
82. Steinberg (2009) (n 76) 465.
83. Ibid.
84. O. Carter Snead, ‘Neuroimaging and the ‘Complexity’ of Capital Punishment’ (2007) 82 New York University Law Review 1265, 1273.
85. Jay N Giedd, ‘The Teen Brain: Insights from Neuroimaging’ (2008) 42 Journal of Adolescent Health 335, 343.
86. Rhoshel K. Lenroot and Jay N. Giedd, ‘Brain development in children and adolescents: Insights from anatomical magnetic resonance imaging’ (2006) 30 Neuroscience and Behavioural Reviews 718, 719.
87. Wisconsin Council on Children and Families Rethinking the Juvenile in Juvenile Justice (2006) 13.
88. Robert M Sapolsky ‘The frontal cortex and the criminal justice system’ (2004) 359 Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London B: Biological Sciences 1787, 1792.
89. Jay D. Aronson, ‘Neuroscience and Juvenile Justice’ (2009) 42 Akron Law Review 917, 923.
90. Sara B. Johnson, Robert W. Blum, and Jay N. Giedd, ‘Adolescent Maturity and the Brain: The Promise and Pitfalls of Neuroscience Research in Adolescent Health Policy’ (2009) 45 Journal of Adolescent Health 216, 216.
91. Ibid.
92. Lenroot and Giedd (n 86) 723.
93. Adam Ortiz “Adolescence, Brain Development and Legal Culpability” Juvenile Justice Center, American Bar Association (2004).
94. Praveen Kambam and Christopher Thompson, ‘The Development of Decision-Making Capacities in Children and Adolescents: Psychological and Neurological Perspectives and Their Implications for Juvenile Defendants’ (2009) 27 Behavioral Sciences and the Law 173, 175.
95. Johnson, Blum and Giedd (n 90) 218.
96. Wisconsin Council on Children and Families (n 87) 11–12.
97. Aronson (n 89) 921.
98. Sapolsky (n 88) 1790.
99. Ibid.
100. Ibid.
101. Ibid.
102. Ibid 1791.
103. Aronson (n 89) 922.
104. Ibid.
105. Steinberg (2009) (n 76) 466.
106. Aronson (n 89) 924.
107. Ibid.
108. Ibid 924–925.
109. Giedd (n 85) 340.
110. Zimring (n 17) 441.
111. Steinberg (2009) (n 76) 466.
112. Laurence Steinberg (2008) ‘A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking Dev. Rev. 28:78–106, in Steinberg (2009) (n 76) 466.
113. Dahl R 2001. Affect regulation, brain development, and behavioural/emotional health in adolescence. CNS Specr 6:1–12 cited in Steinberg (2009) (n 76) 466.
114. Johnson, Blum and Giedd (n 90) 218.
115. Ibid 218.
116. Ibid.
117. Tracy Rightmer, ‘Arrested Development: Juveniles’ Immature Brains Make them Less Culpable than Adults’ (2005) 9 Quinnipiac Health Law Journal 1, 18.
118. Steinberg, “Risk Taking in Adolescence: What Changes and Why?” 1021 Annals N.Y. Acad. Sci. 51 (2004) cited in Rightmer ibid 20.
119. See, e.g., Elizabeth S Scott and Thomas Grisso, ‘Developmental Incompetence, Due Process, and Juvenile Justice Policy (2005) 83 North Carolina Law Review 793.
120. Steinberg (2009) (n 76) 471.
121. Soler, Shoenberg and Schindler (n 1) 494.
122. Laurence Steinberg and Elizabeth S. Scott, ‘Less Guilty by Reason of Adolescence: Developmental Immaturity, Diminished Responsibility and the Juvenile Death Penalty’ (2003) 58 American Psychologist 1009, 1016.
123. Patricia Puritz and Katayoon Majd ‘Ensuring Authentic Youth Participation in Delinquency Cases: Creating a Paradigm for Specialized Juvenile Defense Practice’ (2007) 45 Family Court Review 466, 473.
124. Bronitt and McSherry (n 3) 276.
125. James Chalmers, “Abnormality and Anglicisation: First Thoughts on Galbraith v HM Advocate (No.2)” (2002) Edinburgh Law Review 6(1), 108–117, 114.
126. [1960] 2 QB 396, 403.
127. Bronitt and McSherry (n 3) 276.
128. Byrne (n 126) 404.
129. Taylor-Thompson (n 16)162.
130. Taylor-Thompson 164–165.
131. Ibid 162.
132. Ibid 163.
133. Ibid.
134. Ibid 165.
135. Ibid, and see n 144 and accompanying text.
136. Ibid168.
137. Puritz and Majd (n 123) 474.
138. R v O’Brien (2003) 20 CRNZ 572.
139. Ibid.
140. Ibid 578.
141. Ibid.
142. Puritz and Majd (n 123) 474–475.
143. Ibid 475.
144. R v Makoare [2001] 1 NZLR 318, (2000) 18 CRNZ 511.
145. Ibid 323, 516.
146. New Zealand Law Commission, Evidence: Evidence Code and Commentary NZLC R55—Volume 2, Wellington, 1999, C102.
147. Makoare (n 144), 323, 517.
148. Ibid 323–324, 517
149. Kambam and Thompson (n 94) 175.
150. R v F, unreported, High Court, Auckland (CRI2006-204-748). 2 April 2008. Allan N, at [12].
151. Ibid [2], [4].
152. Ibid [1].
153. Ibid [8].
154. Ibid [9].
155. Ibid [10].
156. Ibid [9], [10].
157. Ibid [14].
158. Makoare (n 144).
159. R v F (n 150) [17].
160. Ibid [24].
161. Steinberg (2009) (n 76) 464.
162. Ibid 464.
163. See, e.g., Terry A. Maroney, ‘The False Promise of Adolescent Brain Science in Juvenile Justice’ (2009) 85 Notre Dame Law Review 89.
164. See, e.g., ibid 135.
165. Stephen J Morse, ‘Not So Hard (And Not So Special), After All: Comments on Zimring's “The Hardest of the Hard Cases”’ (1999) 6 Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law 471, 472.
166. Ibid 473.
167. Ibid 473–474.
168. Aronson (n 89) 929.
169. Steinberg (2009) (n 76) 473.
170. Aronson (n 89) 928.
171. Zimring (n 17) 438.
172. Steinberg and Scott (n 122) 1010.
173. Steinberg (2009) (n 89) 473.
174. Johnson, Blum and Giedd (n 90) 219.
175. Ibid.
176. Giedd (n 85) 340.
177. Rightmer (n 117) 25.