Title of Dissertation: ABSTRACT the PSYCHOBIOLOGIC
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ABSTRACT Title of Dissertation: THE PSYCHOBIOLOGIC, SOCIOMORAL AND LEGAL DEVELOPMENT OF JUVENILES ON DEATH ROW Kirsten Sundeen, Doctor of Philosophy, 1998 Dissertation directed by: Professor Charles Wellford, Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology In spite of substantial research completed on the subject of the death penalty, its imposition on offenders whose crimes were committed as juveniles continues to remain a subject of great debate. The recent Supreme Court decisions in Thompson v. Oklahoma, 108 S. Ct. 2687 ( 1988) and Stanford v. Kentucky, 109 S. Ct. 2969 ( 1989) theoretically established the age limit at 16-years-old. In reality, the imposition of sentences remains open to much judicial discretion in process and application. The crux of the problem is the great divide that continues to exist between the legal definition of juvenile and the biopsychosocial research. This paper argues that the legal definition fails to consider the biophysical and socioscientific evidence which is clearly supportive of a bright constitutional line being drawn at 18 years of age. There are currently a confirmed 71 subjects on death rows throughout the United States for crimes committed as juveniles. A substantive review of the available cases for similar appellate court identified mitigating factors is presented with particular emphasis on the recently argued Supreme Court cases of Thompson v. Oklahoma, Stanford v. Kentucky and ·wilkins v. Missouri. Upon analysis of these cases, it appears that the young offenders have more than their age in common. Such factors as emotional and psychological disturbance, psychiatric diagnoses, troubled family history, documented history of head trauma and subnormal intelligence levels all put these juveniles at risk for so-called dissocial behavior. This risk factor is supported by a wide range of scientific data which is reviewed in this paper. In our society, disturbing ambiguity exists in the treatment of kids who kill. This is reflected in the diverse state statutes where the death penalty is permitted for juveniles. Although this individualized treatment was originally intended to be in the best interest of the juvenile, the unintended results have been inconsistency and inequity in treatment. A multitude of human factors make it virtually impossible to ensure that nonstatutory and statutory mitigating factors are uniformly applied in similar situations. THE PSYCHOBIOLOGIC, SOCIOMORAL AND LEGAL DEVELOPMENT OF JUVENILES ON DEA TH ROW by Kirsten Sundeen Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland at College Park in Partial Fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 1998 C l \·/\ I) ,. (_ 'q l'\ 'I , 0 o Ji \ jl,.)~·h(..(, Advisory Committee: Professor Charles Wellford, Chairman/Advisor Professor Raymond Paternoster Associate Professor Katheryn Russell Adjunct Professor Alvin Zumbrun Professor Paul Power ©Copyright by Kirsten Sundeen 1998 Dedication To my parents, Gene and Sheila sister, Mercedes and brother-in-law, Tom DiMisa ll Acknowledgements My sincere thanks to Dr. Charles Wellford for his ongoing patience and suppo1t through even the most difficult of times. This project would not have been possible without him Special thanks to Dr. Raymond Paternoster for his valuable recommendations. My thanks to Dr. Alvin Zumbrun for his enthusiasm, sense of humor and encouragement. Thanks to Drs. Paul Power and Katheryn Russell for their assistance. Finally, my thanks to Dr. Cara Krulewitch for her strength and guidance. m Table of Contents List of Charts ......................................................... vi List of Tables ......... ....... ........ ...................... .. ... vn I: Introduction . 1 A. Background . 1 B. Juvenile Justice ............· . 5 II: Psycho biologic Variables . 16 A. Family History . 16 B. Psychiatric Factors . 39 C. Emotional Effects ............. ................ ............. 41 D. Adoption-Twin Studies .................... ........... ...... 43 E. Gene-Environment Correlations and Interactions ................... 46 F. Family Environmental Effects . 4 7 1. Attachment . 50 2. Ethological Correlation . 55 G. Interaction of Family, Environment and Conscience ................. 57 1. Neurophysiological Studies . 64 2. Psychophysiological Studies . 66 3. Neuropsychological Studies .............................. 67 III: Sociomoral Issues . 72 A. Conscience and Morality . 72 B. Moral Development ... .. .................. .................. 76 C. Kohlberg's Cognitive-Developmental Structuralism ................. 81 I. Preconventional Level . 82 Stage 1: Punishment and Obedience Orientation ....... ... 82 Stage 2: Instrumental Relativist Orientation . 82 II. Conventional Level . 82 Stage 3: Interpersonal Concordance . 83 Stage 4: "Law and Order" ............................ 83 III. Postconventional, Autonomous, Principled Level . 83 Stage 5: Social Contract Legalistic Orientation . 83 Stage 6: Universal Ethical and Principle Orientation . 84 IV: Methodology . 90 A. Study Design ............................................... 90 B. Preliminary Phase ........................ .. .................. 90 C. Data Collection Phase . ...... ... ...... ...... ............. 91 1. Overall Plan . 91 IV 2. Case Identification and Validation . .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. 91 3. Substantive Analysis of Cases . ... .. .. .. .. 92 4. Final Confirmation ... .. ... ... ........... .. ... 93 5. Variables . ... .. .. .. ... ... ... .. ... ... .. 94 D. Data Analysis Phase .. ... ...... .. .... .. .. ... .. 95 V: Findings . 96 A Univariate and Bivariate Analyses . ... ... ... .. .. ... .. .. 96 B. Multivariate Analyses .. .. ... .. ..... .. ... .. ... 98 VI: Constitutional Analysis . 101 A Disproportionality . 102 B. Case Law . ..... ...... .. .. .. .. .. ... ....... ... .. ... 108 C. International Standards . 115 D. Penological Goals . 120 1. Retribution ..... ... .. .. .. ... ... .... .. ... ... 120 2. Institutional Revenge Model ... ....... .. .. ... .. .. 123 3. Just Deserts Model . .... .... .. .. ...... ... .. 124 E. Deterrence .. ... .. ... .. .. ... .. .. ..... .. ... ... .. 128 1. General Deterrence . .. .. .. ...... ... ... ... ... 128 2. Specific Deterrence . ... .... ... .. ... .. ..... .... 133 F. Rehabilitation ..... .... .. .. .. .. ... .. .. 135 G. Prediction .. .. ... .. ... .... ... ..... .. .. .... .. .. 139 H. Recidivism . 14 5 VII: Conclusion . .. .. ... ...... ....... ... ... ..... 149 A. Summary . ... ... .. ...... ... ... ... ... .. .. .. 149 B. Limitations .. .. .. .... .. .. .... ... .. ... .. .. .. 152 C. Future Research . .. .. ........ ..... .. ... .. .. .. 154 D. Implications .... ......... .. ... .... ..... .. .. 154 E. Recommendations . ....... ... ... ....... .... .. ... 156 Appendix A ... .. ... .. ... ...... .. .. ...... ..... .. ... 158 Appendix B .. .. .... .. .... .. .. ... ... ... ... .. .... .. .... 167 Endnotes . 183 References . 189 V List of Charts 1. Minimum Death Penalty Ages by Jurisdiction in the United States 159 2. Minimum Age at Which Children Can Be Tried as an Adult by Jurisdiction in the United States 160 3. Death Penalty Statutes in the United States 161 4. State Statutes Specifically Listing as a Mitigating Factor 162 5. Amici Curiae Briefs filed on Behalf of Thompson v. Oklahoma, Standford v. Kentucky, Wilkins v. Misso!!ri, High v. Zant 163 6. Inmates under Juvenile Death Sentence by State, United States, June, 1998 164 VI List of Tables 1. Juveniles on Death Row--Demographic Characteristics by Age 168 2. First Victim--Age, Race and Gender by Age of Juvenile 169 3. Second Victim--Age, Race and Gender by Age of Juvenile 170 4. Third Victim--Age, Race and Gender by Age of Juvenile 171 5. Race of Victim by Race of Juvenile 172 6. Juveniles on Death Row--Statutory Mitigating Circumstances used in each case by Age 173 7. Statutory Mitigating Circumstances used in each case by Race of Juvenile 173 8. Juveniles on Death Row--Statutory Aggravating Circumstances by Age 174 9. Statutory Aggravating Circumstances by Race of Juvenile 175 10. Significant Relationships between Aggravating Circumstances and Statutory Mitigating Factors with Fisher's Exact Test for Significance and Odds Ratios with 95% CI 176 11. State Jailed by Race of Juvenile with x2 Analysis and Fisher's Exact Test for Significance 177 12. Significant Associations--White v. Non-White with Fisher's Exact Test for Significance and Odds Ratios with 95% CI 178 13. Significant Associations--Black v. Non-Black with Fisher's Exact Test for Significance and Odds Ratios with 95% CI 179 14. Age-Race Interactions--Black v. Non-Black with Fisher's Exact Test for Significance and 95% CI 180 15 . Significant Associations--Hispanic v. Non-Hispanic with Fisher's Exact Test for Significance and Odds Ratios with 95% CI 181 Vil I: Introduction A. Background There is a disturbing degree of ambivalence and conflict reflected in the diverse and sometimes contradictory social policies and criminal laws which are focused on the management of violent juvenile offenders. A critical aspect of this debate is the difference in the legal construction ofjuvenile and the biopsychosocial research which defines their behavior in terms of physical, emotional, social and cognitive development. Although this may constitute an interesting heuristic debate, its practical application has deadly consequences. A disturbing example is how the narrow legal construction of a juvenile's criminal responsibility is used as justification for imposition of