Adolescent Brain Development - the Youth Advocacy Division
Adolescent Brain Development - the Youth Advocacy Division
Adolescent Brain Development - the Youth Advocacy Division
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>Adolescent</strong> <strong>Brain</strong> <strong>Development</strong><br />
A <strong>Youth</strong> <strong>Advocacy</strong> Project/Juvenile Defense Network Project<br />
TABLE OF CONTENTS<br />
I. Quick Reference<br />
1. Juvenile Defense Network, Fact Sheet<br />
2. Juvenile Defense Network, Relevant Cases<br />
3. Juvenile Defense Network, Annotated Bibliography<br />
4. Juvenile Defense Network, Experts List (Draft)<br />
5. Juvenile Defense Network, <strong>Adolescent</strong> <strong>Brain</strong> <strong>Development</strong> 2006 Mailing<br />
6. Coalition for Juvenile Justice, A <strong>Development</strong>al Framework for Juvenile Cases<br />
II. News Articles<br />
1. Stephanie Chen, States Rethink ‘Adult Time for Adult Crime’, CNN, January 15,<br />
2010, http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/01/15/connecticut.juvenile.ages/index.html<br />
(last visited Apr. 22, 2010).<br />
2. Jeffrey Rosen, The <strong>Brain</strong> on <strong>the</strong> Stand, N.Y. TIMES, March 11, 2007,<br />
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/magazine/11Neurolaw.t.html (last visited Apr.<br />
22, 2010).<br />
3. Joline Krueger, <strong>Brain</strong> Science Offers Insight to Teen Crime, ALBUQUERQUE<br />
TRIB., December 8, 2006, http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2006/dec/08/brain-scienceoffers-insight-teen-crime/<br />
(last visited Apr. 22, 2010).<br />
4. Ruben C. Gur, <strong>Brain</strong> Maturation and <strong>the</strong> Execution of Juveniles, THE PENN.<br />
GAZETTE, January/February 2005.<br />
5. Lee Bowman, New Research Shows Stark Differences in Teen <strong>Brain</strong>s, Scripps<br />
Howard, May 11, 2004, http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/new-research-shows-starkdifferences-teen-brains<br />
(last visited Apr. 22, 2010).<br />
6. Claudia Wallis, What Makes Teens Tick? TIME, May 10, 2004.<br />
7. Bruce Bower, Teen <strong>Brain</strong>s on Trial: The Science of Neural <strong>Development</strong> Tangles<br />
with <strong>the</strong> Juvenile Death Penalty, SCI. NEWS, May 8, 2004,<br />
http://www.phschool.com/science/science_news/articles/teen_brains_trial.html (last<br />
visited Apr. 22, 2010).<br />
III. Academic Articles<br />
1. Elizabeth Cauffman et. al., Age Differences in Affective Decision Making as Indexed<br />
by Performance on <strong>the</strong> Iowa Gambling Test, 46 DEV. PSYCHOL. 193 (2010).<br />
2. Laurence Steinberg, <strong>Adolescent</strong> <strong>Development</strong> and Juvenile Justice, 16 ANN. REV.<br />
OF CLINICAL PSYCHOL. 47 (2009).<br />
3. Laurence Steinberg, A Social Neuroscience Perspective on <strong>Adolescent</strong> Risk-taking, 28<br />
DEVELOPMENTAL REV. 78 (2008).<br />
4. Jeffrey Fagan, Juvenile Crime and Criminal Justice: Resolving Border Disputes, 18<br />
FUTURE OF CHILDREN 81 (2008).<br />
http://futureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/publications/docs/18_02_05.pdf (last<br />
visited Apr. 30, 2010)<br />
5. Barry Feld, A Slower Form of Death, 22 NOTRE DAME J.L. ETHICS & PUB.<br />
POL’Y 9 (2008).
6. Hillary Massey, 8 th Amendment and Juvenile Life Without Parole after Roper, 47 B.<br />
C. L. REV. 1083 (2006).<br />
7. Staci Gruber & Deborah Yurgelun-Todd, Neurobiology and <strong>the</strong> Law: A Role in<br />
Juvenile Justice? 3 OHIO ST. J. OF CRIM. L. 321 (2006).<br />
8. Margo Gardner & Laurence Steinberg, Peer Influence on Risk Taking, Risk<br />
Preference, and Risky Decision-Making in Adolescence and Adulthood: An<br />
Experimental Study, 41 DEV. PSYCHOL. 625 (2005).<br />
9. Press Release, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, <strong>Adolescent</strong><br />
<strong>Brain</strong>s Show Reduced Reward Anticipation, (Feb. 25, 2004).<br />
10. Laurence Steinberg & Elizabeth Scott, Less Guilty By Reason of Adolescence:<br />
<strong>Development</strong>al Immaturity, Diminished Responsibility, and <strong>the</strong> Juvenile Death<br />
Penalty, 58 AMER. PSYCHOL. 1009 (2003).<br />
IV. Reports and O<strong>the</strong>r <strong>Advocacy</strong> Resources<br />
1. CHILD. LAW CTR. OF MASS., UNTIL THEY DIE A NATURAL DEATH:<br />
YOUTH SENTENCED TO LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE IN MASSACHUSETTS<br />
(2009).<br />
2. Wendy Paget Henderson, Life After Roper: Using <strong>Adolescent</strong> <strong>Brain</strong> <strong>Development</strong> in<br />
Court, 11 A.B.A. CHILD. RTS 1, 1 (2009).<br />
3. Connie de la Vega & Michelle Leighton, Sentencing Our Children to Die in Prison:<br />
Global Law and Practice, 42 U.S.F.L. REV. 983 (2008).<br />
4. HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, THE REST OF THEIR LIVES: LIFE WITHOUT<br />
PAROLE FOR YOUTH IN THE UNITED STATES IN 2008 (2008).<br />
5. A.B.A. RECOMMENDATION 105C, Mitigating Circumstances in Sentencing<br />
<strong>Youth</strong>ful Offenders (2008).<br />
6. Allstate Advertisement, WALL STREET JOURNAL, May 17, 2007.<br />
7. Less Guilty By Reason of Adolescence, Issue Brief (MacArthur Found. Res. Network<br />
on <strong>Adolescent</strong> Dev. & Juv. Just., 2006.<br />
http://www.adjj.org/downloads/6093issue_brief_3.pdf (last visited May 19, 2010)<br />
8. National Institute of Mental Health, Teenage <strong>Brain</strong>: A Work in Progress, 2001.<br />
V. Expert Testimonies/Briefs Addressing Expert Evidence<br />
1. Amici Curiae Brief of <strong>the</strong> American Psychological Association, et al.,<br />
Graham v. Florida and Sullivan v. Florida (2009)<br />
2. Affidavit of Dr. Staci A. Gruber (2009)<br />
3. Declaration of Ruben C. Gur, Ph.D., Patterson v. Texas (2002)<br />
4. Testimony of Ruben C. Gur, Ph. D., People v. Clark, (Illinois)<br />
5. Testimony of David Fassler, M.D., New Hampshire State Legislature (2004)<br />
6. Interview with Deborah Yurgelun-Todd, PBS Frontline (2002)<br />
VI. Supreme Court Opinions<br />
1. Graham v. Florida – Majority opinion given by Justice Kennedy. Full opinion<br />
available at http://eji.org/eji/files/Decision%20in%20Graham.pdf.<br />
2. Graham v. Florida Quotes<br />
3. Roper v. Simmons – Majority opinion given by Justice Kennedy<br />
4. Atkins v. Virginia – Majority opinion given by Justice Stevens<br />
5. Thompson v. Oklahoma – Majority opinion given by Justice Stevens
VII. Legal Motions from MA<br />
1. Motion to dismiss YO (Jack Cunha) – 2009<br />
2. Memo of law to dismiss YO (Jack Cunha) – 2009<br />
3. Motion to Dismiss YO (Jack Cunha) – 2007<br />
4. Massachusetts Exhibit Appendix (Jack Cunha) – 2007<br />
5. Memo of Law to Dismiss (Jack Cunha) – 2007<br />
6. Motion to Dismiss YO (Ken King) – 2007<br />
7. Memo to Dismiss (Ken King) – 2007<br />
8. Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (Ken King) – 2007<br />
9. Motion to Dismiss (Patricia Downey) – 2005<br />
VIII. Legal Motions from O<strong>the</strong>r States<br />
1. Petitioner Brief, Sullivan v. Florida (2009)<br />
2. Petitioner Brief, Graham v. Florida (2009)<br />
3. Pennsylvania – Amici Brief<br />
4. Pennsylvania – Cover Sheet<br />
5. Alabama – Juvenile LWOP Brief<br />
6. Alabama – Sentencing Transcript<br />
7. Colorado – Flakes v. People<br />
8. Colorado – Apprendi Motion<br />
9. Colorado – Cert Petition<br />
10. Illinois – Motion Transfer Unconstitutional<br />
11. Illinois – Reply Brief<br />
12. Illinois – Appellant Brief<br />
13. New Mexico – Motion to Dismiss<br />
14. Washington, D.C. – Motion to Dismiss<br />
15. Washington, D.C. – Reply Letter<br />
16. Washington, D.C. – 2 nd Reply Letter<br />
IX. State Statutes<br />
1. 50 State Chart of JLWOP Law (National Conference of State Legislators)<br />
X. Helpful Websites<br />
1. List of helpful websites
<strong>Adolescent</strong> <strong>Brain</strong> <strong>Development</strong><br />
Quick Reference Fact Sheet<br />
Background<br />
• With <strong>the</strong> recent cases of Graham v. Florida (2010), Roper v. Simmons (2005), Atkins v. Virginia (2002), and<br />
Thompson v. Oklahoma (1988), <strong>the</strong> topics of adolescent brain development and juvenile culpability have come to<br />
<strong>the</strong> forefront of juvenile criminal law. In Graham, <strong>the</strong> Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional to sentence<br />
juveniles convicted of non-homicide offenses to life without <strong>the</strong> possibility of parole. In Thompson and Roper, <strong>the</strong><br />
Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional to give <strong>the</strong> death penalty to juveniles (Thompson set <strong>the</strong> age limit to<br />
16, Roper to 18). In each of <strong>the</strong>se cases, <strong>the</strong> underlying rationale was that juvenile offenders tend to lack maturity<br />
(both socially and biologically), are more reckless, are more susceptible to peer pressure, and are more vulnerable<br />
to <strong>the</strong>ir surroundings than adults. In both Graham and Atkins, <strong>the</strong> topic of brain development played a crucial role<br />
in <strong>the</strong> Court determining that <strong>the</strong> sentence in question was not appropriate in light of <strong>the</strong> lessened culpability of<br />
<strong>the</strong> category of offenders challenging <strong>the</strong> sentence (juveniles in Graham, mentally retarded individuals in Atkins).<br />
Indeed, <strong>the</strong> Graham decision went as far as stating that “An offender’s age is relevant to <strong>the</strong> 8 th amendment, and<br />
criminal procedure laws that fail to take defendants’ youthfulness into account at all would be flawed.” Graham v.<br />
Florida, No. 08-7412, slip. op at 25, 560 U.S. __ (2010)<br />
• <strong>Adolescent</strong> brain development has become an increasingly accurate field of research in recent years due to <strong>the</strong><br />
development of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) procedures. Prior to <strong>the</strong> use of MRI technology, <strong>the</strong> only<br />
major studies that had been performed involved post-mortem (cadaver) tissue, since X-rays and o<strong>the</strong>r means of<br />
testing were deemed potentially harmful to youth. MRI technology allows for <strong>the</strong> same subject to be tracked from<br />
infancy into adulthood. 1<br />
• States and <strong>the</strong> federal government generally do not recognize youth as being mature enough to handle many<br />
situations. For example, youth cannot drive until age 16 (varies by state, w/ most adopting restrictions on under 18<br />
drivers), or see rated R movies without adult supervision until <strong>the</strong>y are 17. They cannot vote, smoke, sign<br />
contracts, enter military services, or get married (varies by state) until age 18. And lastly, <strong>the</strong>y cannot drink until<br />
age 21. The implications of <strong>the</strong>se social norms indicates that society does not fully trust youth with many<br />
privileges, and thus do not consider <strong>the</strong>m as responsible as adults. 2<br />
Implications<br />
• As compared to adults, juveniles have a “‘lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility’”; <strong>the</strong>y<br />
“are more vulnerable or susceptible to negative influences and outside pressures, including peer pressure”; and<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir characters are “not as well formed.” 3<br />
• “The evidence is strong that <strong>the</strong> brain does not cease to mature until <strong>the</strong> early 20s in those relevant parts that<br />
govern impulsivity, judgment, planning for <strong>the</strong> future, foresight of consequences, and o<strong>the</strong>r characteristics that<br />
make people morally culpable.” 4<br />
• “Neuroscientists have been able to demonstrate conclusively that mental maturation follows closely <strong>the</strong> time<br />
course of brain maturation. Thus, juveniles have to rely on <strong>the</strong> abilities of <strong>the</strong>ir still immature brains, and no<br />
amount of social intervention or self-motivation can appreciably influence <strong>the</strong> biological processes involved in<br />
brain maturation.” 5<br />
• “The cortical regions that are last to mature… are involved in behavioral facets germane to many aspects of<br />
criminal culpability. Perhaps most relevant is <strong>the</strong> involvement of <strong>the</strong>se brain regions in <strong>the</strong> control of aggression<br />
and o<strong>the</strong>r impulses, <strong>the</strong> process of planning for long-range goals, organization of sequential behavior,<br />
consideration of alternatives and consequences, <strong>the</strong> process of abstraction and mental flexibility, and aspects of<br />
memory including ‘working memory.’… If <strong>the</strong> neural substrates of <strong>the</strong>se behaviors have not reached maturity<br />
before adulthood, it is unreasonable to expect <strong>the</strong> behaviors <strong>the</strong>mselves to reflect mature thought processes.”<br />
[Emphasis Added]. 6
Scientific Backing<br />
• Myelination is <strong>the</strong> main index by which brain maturity is measured. Myelin implies more mature, efficient<br />
connections, within <strong>the</strong> brain’s ‘gray matter.’ UCLA researchers performed a study comparing myelination of<br />
young adults aged 23-30 with adolescents aged 12-16. They found that <strong>the</strong>re was a stark contrast in <strong>the</strong><br />
myelination, especially in <strong>the</strong> frontal lobe and frontal cortex, <strong>the</strong> areas that relate to <strong>the</strong> maturation of cognitive<br />
processing and o<strong>the</strong>r ‘executive functions.’ 7<br />
• According to studies using advances in MRI technology, <strong>the</strong> area of <strong>the</strong> brain (frontal lobe) that is most related to<br />
decision making, planning, risk-assessment, judgment, and o<strong>the</strong>r factors generally associated with criminal<br />
culpability is also one of <strong>the</strong> last to fully mature. 8<br />
• According to research conducted by Lawrence Steinberg, a noted Professor of Psychology at Temple University,<br />
“risky behavior in adolescence is <strong>the</strong> product of <strong>the</strong> interaction between changes in two distinct neurobiological<br />
systems: a socioemotional system [which includes <strong>the</strong> amygdala and medial prefrontal cortex]. . . and a cognitive<br />
control system.” 9 Steinberg has noted that “changes in <strong>the</strong> socioemotional system at puberty may promote<br />
reckless, sensation-seeking behavior in early and middle adolescence, while <strong>the</strong> regions of <strong>the</strong> prefrontal cortex<br />
that govern cognitive control continue to mature over <strong>the</strong> course of adolescence and into young adulthood. This<br />
temporal gap between <strong>the</strong> increase in sensation seeking around puberty and <strong>the</strong> later development of mature selfregulatory<br />
competence may combine to make adolescence a time of inherently immature judgment. Thus, despite<br />
<strong>the</strong> fact that in many ways adolescents may appear to be as intelligent as adults (at least as indexed by<br />
performance on tests of information processing and logical reasoning), <strong>the</strong>ir ability to regulate <strong>the</strong>ir behavior in<br />
accord with <strong>the</strong>se advanced intellectual abilities is more limited.” 10<br />
• According to a study at Harvard’s McLean Hospital, young teens tend to rely more on <strong>the</strong> part of <strong>the</strong> brain<br />
(amygdala) responsible for fear and o<strong>the</strong>r ‘gut reactions’ when responding to o<strong>the</strong>r people’s emotions. Adults in<br />
contrast, more often utilize <strong>the</strong> frontal lobe, <strong>the</strong> part of <strong>the</strong> brain which yields more reasoned perceptions. 11<br />
• According to a study performed by researches using MRI technology at <strong>the</strong> National Institute on Alcohol Abuse<br />
and Alcoholism, adolescents use lower activation of <strong>the</strong> part of <strong>the</strong> brain that is “crucial for motivating behavior<br />
toward <strong>the</strong> prospect of rewards.” The study concludes that youth differ significantly in <strong>the</strong>ir responses to “rewarddirected<br />
behavior.” 12<br />
• The production of testosterone, a hormone that is closely associated with aggression, increases approximately<br />
tenfold in adolescent boys. 13<br />
1<br />
American Bar Association (ABA): Juvenile Justice Center. Adolescence, <strong>Brain</strong> <strong>Development</strong> and Legal Culpability. 2004.<br />
2<br />
Fagan, Jeffrey. “<strong>Adolescent</strong>s, Maturity, and <strong>the</strong> Law. The American Prospect. August, 2005.<br />
3<br />
Graham v. Florida, No. 08-7412, slip. op. at 17, 560 U.S. __ (2010) (quoted from Roper v. Simmons 543 U.S. at 569-570 (2005)).<br />
4<br />
Gur, Ruben C., Ph.D. Declaration of Ruben C. Gur. Patterson v. Texas. Petition for Writ of Certiorari to US Supreme Court, J. Gary<br />
Hart, Counsel. (2002).<br />
5<br />
Gur, op. cit.<br />
6<br />
Gur, op. cit.<br />
7<br />
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). Teenage <strong>Brain</strong>: A Work in Progress. A brief overview of research into brain<br />
development during adolescence. 2001. See also: Sowell, Elizabeth, et al. In vivo evidence for post-adolescent brain maturation in<br />
frontal and striatal regions. Nature Neuroscience, 1999; 2(10): 859-861.<br />
8<br />
Fagan, op, cit. See also: Goldberg, Elkhonon. The Executive <strong>Brain</strong>, Frontal Lobes and <strong>the</strong> Civilized Mind, (2001).<br />
9<br />
Lawrence Steinberg, <strong>Adolescent</strong> <strong>Development</strong> and Juvenile Justice, ANNU. REV. CLIN. PSYCHOL. 2009. 5:47–73 at 54.<br />
10<br />
Id. at 55.<br />
11<br />
NIMH, op cit. See also: Baird, et al. Functional magnetic resonance imaging of facial affect recognition in children and adolescents.<br />
Journal of <strong>the</strong> American Academy of Child and <strong>Adolescent</strong> Psychiatry, 1999; 38(2): 195-9.<br />
12<br />
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA). <strong>Adolescent</strong> <strong>Brain</strong>s Show Reduced Reward Anticipation, 2004.<br />
13<br />
See Adams, Gerald R., Montemayor, Raymond, and Gullota, Thomas P., eds. Psychosocial <strong>Development</strong> during Adolescence. Sage<br />
Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA. (1996).
<strong>Adolescent</strong> <strong>Brain</strong> <strong>Development</strong><br />
Quick Reference Relevant Cases<br />
GRAHAM v. FLORIDA (2010)<br />
In Graham, <strong>the</strong> Supreme Court declared life without parole sentences for nonhomicide offenders under age 18<br />
unconstitutional. This decision marked <strong>the</strong> first time that <strong>the</strong> court declared a non-capital punishment to be cruel and<br />
unusual for an entire category of offenders. Although <strong>the</strong> holding of Graham arguably does not apply directly in<br />
Massachusetts, much of <strong>the</strong> language is broad enough that it can apply to juveniles who committed homicides as well as<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r offenses. Notably, <strong>the</strong>re is language indicating that life without parole sentences may not be appropriate for<br />
juveniles who “did not kill or intend to kill”, Graham v. Florida, No. 08-7412, slip. op. at 18, 560 U.S. __ (2010), as well<br />
as o<strong>the</strong>r language noting that “juvenile offenders cannot with reliability be classified among <strong>the</strong> worst offender” Id. at 17<br />
(quoting Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 853 (1988)) and that “[a]n offender’s age is relevant to <strong>the</strong> 8 th amendment, and<br />
criminal procedure laws that fail to take defendants’ youthfulness into account at all would be flawed.” Id. at 25. The<br />
court also noted that “[b]ecause ‘[t]he age of 18 is <strong>the</strong> point where society draws <strong>the</strong> line for many purposes between<br />
childhood and adulthood,’ those who were below that age when <strong>the</strong> offense was committed may not be sentenced to life<br />
without parole for a nonhomicide crime.” Id. at 24 (quoting Roper v. Simmons 543 U.S. at 574 (2005))<br />
ROPER v SIMMONS (2005)<br />
The March 2005 Supreme Court ruling in Roper finally outlawed <strong>the</strong> death penalty for juvenile offenders. Though <strong>the</strong><br />
majority opinion did not specifically mention recent scientific studies regarding differences between <strong>the</strong> adolescent brain<br />
and <strong>the</strong> adult brain, <strong>the</strong> American Psychological Association (APA) submitted a brief to <strong>the</strong> court in regards to <strong>the</strong> recent<br />
developments. Significantly, <strong>the</strong> scientific evidence presented by <strong>the</strong> APA was not challenged by ei<strong>the</strong>r side, something<br />
that had been done in prior decisions regarding <strong>the</strong> juvenile death penalty.<br />
ATKINS v VIRGINIA (2002)<br />
Atkins was <strong>the</strong> Supreme Court case that outlawed <strong>the</strong> death penalty for mentally retarded offenders, and set in motion <strong>the</strong><br />
ruling that was decided in Roper. Atkins is perhaps <strong>the</strong> most relevant case toward adolescent brain development<br />
specifically, as it <strong>the</strong> practice of executing mentally retarded offenders was declared unconstitutional under <strong>the</strong> Eighth<br />
Amendment (Cruel & Unusual Punishment). Justice Stevens delivered <strong>the</strong> Court’s Opinion, specifically noting that<br />
“because of [mentally retarded persons’] disabilities in areas of reasoning, judgment, and control of <strong>the</strong>ir impulses,<br />
however, <strong>the</strong>y do not act with <strong>the</strong> level of moral culpability that characterizes <strong>the</strong> most serious adult criminal conduct.”<br />
With adolescent brain development studies demonstrating that most adolescents do not fully develop <strong>the</strong> parts of <strong>the</strong> brain<br />
that deal specifically with reasoning, weighing of long-term goals, and instead tend to use <strong>the</strong> part of <strong>the</strong> brain responsible<br />
for making “gut reactions,” <strong>the</strong> Atkins case has significant implications.<br />
PATTERSON v TEXAS (2002)<br />
In <strong>the</strong> case of Patterson v Texas, <strong>the</strong> Declaration of Ruben C. Gur, Ph.D. was submitted in appeals to bolster <strong>the</strong> argument<br />
that <strong>the</strong> defendant, a juvenile at <strong>the</strong> time of <strong>the</strong> accused crime, did not have a fully developed brain, and <strong>the</strong>refore was less<br />
culpable. The decision stated in part that “<strong>the</strong> evidence is strong that <strong>the</strong> brain does not cease to mature until <strong>the</strong> early 20s<br />
in those relevant parts that govern impulsivity, judgment, planning for <strong>the</strong> future, foresight of consequences, and o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
characteristics that make people morally culpable.” Dr. Gur’s findings were reiterated in <strong>the</strong> petition for writ of certiorari.<br />
The ruling on Patterson was held however, and <strong>the</strong> accused was executed by <strong>the</strong> State of Texas in August, 2002.<br />
THOMPSON v OKLAHOMA (1988)<br />
Thompson was <strong>the</strong> Supreme Court case where <strong>the</strong> age limit for <strong>the</strong> death penalty was officially moved up to 16. Although<br />
MRI technology was unavailable to demonstrate scientific reasoning for different brain development, <strong>the</strong> Thompson case<br />
is still vital as <strong>the</strong> court differentiated <strong>the</strong> culpability of a 15-year old from that of an adult in <strong>the</strong> context of a “heinous<br />
crime.” The decision on Thompson played a critical role as precedent for <strong>the</strong> findings in Roper.
<strong>Adolescent</strong> <strong>Brain</strong> <strong>Development</strong><br />
Annotated Bibliography<br />
I. Quick Reference<br />
Juvenile Defense Network, Fact Sheet<br />
Juvenile Defense Network, Relevant Cases<br />
Juvenile Defense Network, Annotated Bibliography<br />
Juvenile Defense Network, Experts List (Draft)<br />
Juvenile Defense Network, <strong>Adolescent</strong> <strong>Brain</strong> <strong>Development</strong> 2006 Mailing<br />
Coalition for Juvenile Justice, A <strong>Development</strong>al Framework for Juvenile Cases<br />
II. News Articles<br />
Stephanie Chen, States Rethink ‘Adult Time for Adult Crime’, CNN, January 15, 2010,<br />
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/01/15/connecticut.juvenile.ages/index.html (last visited Apr. 22,<br />
2010).<br />
• Discusses state efforts to raise age of automatic adult court jurisdiction, focusing on Connecticut,<br />
which changed age from 16 to 17. Also quotes psychologist Laurence Steinberg comparing <strong>the</strong><br />
teenage brain to “a car with a good accelerator but a weak brake.”<br />
Jeffrey Rosen, The <strong>Brain</strong> on <strong>the</strong> Stand, N.Y. TIMES, March 11, 2007,<br />
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/magazine/11Neurolaw.t.html (last visited Apr. 22, 2010).<br />
• Discusses <strong>the</strong> use of neuroscience in criminal law generally and explores debate over <strong>the</strong><br />
relevance of neuroscience to law. Includes interviews with a lot of <strong>the</strong> experts who are at <strong>the</strong><br />
forefront of brain science as it applies to juvenile justice. Pages 3-4 of Section III include<br />
discussion of psychologist Ruben Gur’s expert testimony and <strong>the</strong> use of “neurolaw” in Roper.<br />
Ruben C. Gur, <strong>Brain</strong> Maturation and <strong>the</strong> Execution of Juveniles, THE PENN. GAZETTE,<br />
January/February 2005.<br />
• Article written by a psychiatrist describing <strong>the</strong> use of brain research in advocating against<br />
imposition of <strong>the</strong> death penalty on older adolescents.<br />
• “The evidence now is strong that <strong>the</strong> brain does not cease to mature until <strong>the</strong> early 20s in those<br />
relevant parts that govern impulsivity, judgment, planning for <strong>the</strong> future, foresight of<br />
consequences, and o<strong>the</strong>r characteristics that make people morally culpable. Therefore, from <strong>the</strong><br />
perspective of neural development, someone under 20 should be considered to have an<br />
underdeveloped brain. Additionally, since brain development in <strong>the</strong> relevant areas goes in phases<br />
that vary in rate and is usually not complete before <strong>the</strong> early to mid-20s, <strong>the</strong>re is no way to state<br />
with any scientific reliability that an individual 17-year-old has a fully matured brain (and should<br />
be eligible for <strong>the</strong> most severe punishment), no matter how many o<strong>the</strong>rwise accurate tests and<br />
measures might be applied to him at <strong>the</strong> time of his trial for capital murder.” (*4)
Joline Krueger, <strong>Brain</strong> Science Offers Insight to Teen Crime, ALBUQUERQUE TRIB., December 8,<br />
2006, http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2006/dec/08/brain-science-offers-insight-teen-crime/ (last visited<br />
Apr. 22, 2010).<br />
• Brief article discussing brain development and question of why adolescents act without thinking.<br />
“Cerebral construction is not complete until around ages 20 to 25, most scientists agree. The<br />
frontal lobe is one of <strong>the</strong> last areas of <strong>the</strong> brain to develop. In <strong>the</strong> adolescent brain, it's barely<br />
firing at all. Without <strong>the</strong> frontal lobe on board, it becomes physiologically harder for a teen to<br />
completely understand <strong>the</strong> future consequences of his or her emotional or impulsive actions,<br />
scientists contend.”<br />
Lee Bowman, New Research Shows Differences in Teen <strong>Brain</strong>s, Scripps Howard, May 11, 2004,<br />
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/new-research-shows-stark-differences-teen-brains (last visited Apr. 22,<br />
2010).<br />
• Explains how while teens’ bodies maybe fully developed, <strong>the</strong>ir brains are nowhere near full<br />
maturity, especially in <strong>the</strong> areas related to culpability.<br />
• “Deborah Yurgelun-Todd of Harvard Medical School and McLean Hospital in Boston has studied<br />
how teenagers and adults respond differently to <strong>the</strong> same images. Shown a set of photos of<br />
people's faces contorted in fear, adults named <strong>the</strong> right emotion, but teens seldom did, often<br />
saying <strong>the</strong> person was angry. … Adults used both <strong>the</strong> advanced prefrontal cortex and <strong>the</strong> more<br />
basic amygdala to evaluate what <strong>the</strong>y had seen; younger teens relied entirely on <strong>the</strong> amygdala,<br />
while older teens (top age in <strong>the</strong> group was 17) showed a progressive shift toward using <strong>the</strong><br />
frontal area of <strong>the</strong> brain. ‘Just because teens are physically mature, <strong>the</strong>y may not appreciate <strong>the</strong><br />
consequences or weigh information <strong>the</strong> same way as adults do,’ Yurgelun-Todd said. ‘Good<br />
judgment is learned, but you can't learn it if you don't have <strong>the</strong> necessary hardware.’”<br />
Claudia Wallis, What Makes Teens Tick? TIME, May 10, 2004,<br />
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,994126,00.html (last visited Apr. 22, 2010).<br />
• Discusses <strong>the</strong> new technology, processes, and findings relating to brain development (as of 2004).<br />
Cites many of <strong>the</strong> leading brain researchers in <strong>the</strong> field.<br />
• “The very last part of <strong>the</strong> brain to be pruned and shaped to its adult dimensions is <strong>the</strong> prefrontal<br />
cortex, home of <strong>the</strong> so-called executive functions--planning, setting priorities, organizing<br />
thoughts, suppressing impulses, weighing <strong>the</strong> consequences of one's actions. In o<strong>the</strong>r words, <strong>the</strong><br />
final part of <strong>the</strong> brain to grow up is <strong>the</strong> part capable of deciding, I'll finish my homework and take<br />
out <strong>the</strong> garbage, and <strong>the</strong>n I'll IM my friends about seeing a movie.” (4)<br />
Bruce Bower, Teen <strong>Brain</strong>s on Trial: The Science of Neural <strong>Development</strong> Tangles with <strong>the</strong> Juvenile Death<br />
Penalty, SCIENCE NEWS, May 8, 2004,<br />
http://www.phschool.com/science/science_news/articles/teen_brains_trial.html (last visited Apr. 22,<br />
2010).<br />
• A good overview of <strong>the</strong> science involved and its application to <strong>the</strong> juvenile death penalty.<br />
• “‘Our objection to <strong>the</strong> juvenile death penalty is rooted in <strong>the</strong> fact that adolescents' brains function<br />
in fundamentally different ways than adults' brains do,’ says David Fassler, a psychiatrist at <strong>the</strong><br />
University of Vermont in Burlington and a leader of <strong>the</strong> effort to infuse capital-crime laws with<br />
brain science.<br />
Age-related brain differences pack a real-world wallop, in his view. ‘From a biological<br />
perspective,’ Fassler asserts, ‘an anxious adolescent with a gun in a convenience store is more<br />
likely to perceive a threat and pull <strong>the</strong> trigger than is an anxious adult with a gun in <strong>the</strong> same<br />
store.’” (1)
III. Academic Articles<br />
Elizabeth Cauffman et. al., Age Differences in Affective Decision Making as Indexed by Performance on<br />
<strong>the</strong> Iowa Gambling Test, DEV. PSYCHOL., 193 (2010).<br />
• Study showing that adolescents perform more poorly than adults in decision-making tasks where<br />
affective processing is involved and respond differently to rewards.<br />
• “[D]ecision making, which frequently precedes engaging in risk-taking behavior, indeed<br />
improves throughout adolescence and into young adulthood … this improvement may be due not<br />
to cognitive maturation but to changes in affective processing. Whereas adolescents may attend<br />
more to <strong>the</strong> potential rewards of a risky decision than to <strong>the</strong> potential costs, adults tend to<br />
consider both, even weighing costs more than rewards.<br />
This higher level of approach behavior during adolescence coupled with <strong>the</strong> lesser inclination<br />
toward harm avoidance may help explain increased novelty-seeking in adolescence, which can<br />
lead to various types of risk taking, including experimentation with drugs, unprotected sex, and<br />
delinquent activity.” (206)<br />
Laurence Steinberg, <strong>Adolescent</strong> <strong>Development</strong> and Juvenile Justice, 16 ANN. REV. OF CLINICAL<br />
PSYCHOL. 47 (2008).<br />
• Excellent overview of adolescent development research. Outlines <strong>the</strong> implications of adolescent<br />
brain, cognitive, and psychosocial development on culpability, competence to stand trial, and<br />
impact of sanctions on adolescents.<br />
Laurence Steinberg, A Social Neuroscience Perspective on <strong>Adolescent</strong> Risk-taking, 28<br />
DEVELOPMENTAL REV. 78 (2008).<br />
• Summarizes brain development research and discusses why risk-taking behavior increases from<br />
childhood to adolescence and decreases from adolescence to adulthood.<br />
• “As a consequence of [neural transformations], relative to prepubertal individuals, adolescents<br />
who have gone through puberty are more inclined to take risks in order to gain rewards, an<br />
inclination that is exacerbated by <strong>the</strong> presence of peers. This increase in reward-seeking … has<br />
its onset around <strong>the</strong> onset of puberty, and likely peaks sometime around age 15, after which it<br />
begins to decline. Behavioral manifestations of <strong>the</strong>se changes are evident in a wide range of<br />
experimental and correlational studies using a diverse array of tasks and self-report instruments<br />
… and are logically linked to well-documented structural and functional changes in <strong>the</strong> brain.”<br />
(92)<br />
Jeffrey Fagan, Juvenile Crime and Criminal Justice: Resolving Border Disputes, 18 FUTURE OF<br />
CHILDREN 81 (2008). http://futureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/publications/docs/18_02_05.pdf (last<br />
visited Apr. 30, 2010)<br />
• “Without exception <strong>the</strong> research evidence shows that policies promoting transfer of adolescents<br />
from juvenile to criminal court fail to deter crime among sanctioned juveniles and may even<br />
worsen public safety risks. The weight of empirical evidence strongly suggests that increasing<br />
<strong>the</strong> scope of transfer has no general deterrent effects on <strong>the</strong> incidence of serious juvenile crime or<br />
specific deterrent effects on <strong>the</strong> re-offending rates of transferred youth. In fact, compared with<br />
youth retained in juvenile court, youth prosecuted as adults had higher rates of rearrest for serious<br />
felony crimes such as robbery and assault. They were also rearrested more quickly and were<br />
more often returned to incarceration.” (105)<br />
Barry Feld, A Slower Form of Death, 22 NOTRE DAME J.L. ETHICS & PUB. POL’Y 9 (2008).<br />
• Argues that <strong>the</strong> diminished responsibility rationale in Roper should be extended by state<br />
legislatures to recognize youthfulness as a categorical mitigating factor in sentencing.
• “Although states may hold youths accountable for <strong>the</strong> harms <strong>the</strong>y cause, Roper explicitly limited<br />
<strong>the</strong> severity of <strong>the</strong> sentence a state could impose on <strong>the</strong>m because of <strong>the</strong>ir diminished<br />
responsibility. Even after youths develop <strong>the</strong> nominal ability to distinguish right from wrong,<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir bad decisions lack <strong>the</strong> same degree of moral blameworthiness as those of adults and warrant<br />
less severe punishment.” (3)<br />
• “The court [in Roper] recognized that youths are more impulsive, seek exciting and dangerous<br />
experiences, and prefer immediate rewards to delayed gratification. They misperceive and<br />
miscalculate risks and discount <strong>the</strong> likelihood of bad consequences. They succumb to negative<br />
peer and adverse environmental influences. All of <strong>the</strong>se normal characteristics increase <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
likelihood of causing devastating injuries to <strong>the</strong>mselves and to o<strong>the</strong>rs. Although <strong>the</strong>y are just as<br />
capable as adults of causing great harm, <strong>the</strong>ir immature judgment and lack of self-control reduces<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir culpability and warrants less-severe punishment.” (6)<br />
• “Roper’s diminished responsibility rationale provides a broader foundation to formally recognize<br />
youthfulness as a categorical mitigating factor in sentencing. Because adolescents lack <strong>the</strong><br />
judgment, appreciation of consequences, and self-control of adults, <strong>the</strong>y deserve shorter sentences<br />
when <strong>the</strong>y cause <strong>the</strong> same harms. <strong>Adolescent</strong>s’ personalities are in transition, and it is unjust and<br />
irrational to continue harshly punishing a fifty- or sixty-year-old person for <strong>the</strong> crime that an<br />
irresponsible child committed several decades earlier.” (10)<br />
Hillary Massey, 8 th Amendment and Juvenile Life Without Parole after Roper, 47 B. C. L. REV. 1083<br />
(2006).<br />
• Argues for elimination or limitation of JLWOP based on proportionality review and diminished<br />
culpability of juveniles.<br />
• “The psychosocial research shows strong differences between adolescents and adults that<br />
implicate assessments of culpability. Researchers have identified four psychosocial factors that<br />
affect <strong>the</strong> way adolescents make decisions, including whe<strong>the</strong>r to commit a crime or an antisocial<br />
act: peer influence, attitude toward risk, future orientation, and capacity for self-management. In<br />
one study, adolescents on average scored significantly lower than adults on <strong>the</strong>se factors and<br />
displayed less sophistication in decision making. Although individual levels of <strong>the</strong>se factors are<br />
more predictive of antisocial decision making than chronological age alone, researchers found<br />
that <strong>the</strong> period between ages sixteen and nineteen is an important transition point in psychosocial<br />
development.” (1090)<br />
Staci Gruber & Deborah Yurgelun-Todd, Neurobiology and <strong>the</strong> Law: A Role in Juvenile Justice? 3 OHIO<br />
ST. J. OF CRIM. L. 321 (2006).<br />
• Summarizes adolescent neurobiology research and argues that brain differences due to immature<br />
development, like brain differences due to disease, be taken into account in justice system.<br />
• “[N]eurobiological studies … indicate that <strong>the</strong> cerebral cortex undergoes a dynamic course of<br />
metabolic maturation that persists at least until <strong>the</strong> age of eighteen. … Younger, less cortically<br />
mature adolescents may be more at risk for engaging in impulsive behavior than <strong>the</strong>ir older peers<br />
for two reasons. First, <strong>the</strong>ir developing brains are more susceptible to <strong>the</strong> neurological effects of<br />
external influences such as peer pressure. Second, <strong>the</strong>y may make poor decisions because <strong>the</strong>y are<br />
cognitively less able to select behavioral strategies associated with self-regulation, judgment, and<br />
planning that would reduce <strong>the</strong> effects of environmental risk factors for engaging in such<br />
behaviors.” (330)<br />
• Steps for defense attorneys to take to understand a client’s state of mind and baseline levels of<br />
functioning are listed on p. 332.
Margo Gardner & Laurence Steinberg, Peer Influence on Risk Taking, Risk Preference, and Risky<br />
Decision-Making in Adolescence and Adulthood: An Experimental Study, 41 DEV. PSYCHOL. 625<br />
(2005).<br />
• Study finding that exposure to peers during a risk taking task doubled <strong>the</strong> amount of risky<br />
behavior among mid-adolescents (with a mean age of 14), increased it by 50 percent among<br />
college undergraduates (with a mean age of 19), and had no impact at all among young adults.<br />
• “[T]he presence of peers makes adolescents and youth, but not adults, more likely to take risks<br />
and more likely to make risky decisions.” (634)<br />
Press Release, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, <strong>Adolescent</strong> <strong>Brain</strong>s Show Reduced<br />
Reward Anticipation, (Feb. 25, 2004). http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/feb2004/niaaa-25.htm (last visited<br />
May 19, 2010)<br />
• Discusses how adolescents’ brains respond differently to incentives (risk/reward). Cites MRI<br />
study conducted on 12-17 year old and 22-28 year old subjects.<br />
• “<strong>Adolescent</strong>s show less activity than adults in brain regions that motivate behavior to obtain<br />
rewards, according to results from <strong>the</strong> first magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) study to examine<br />
real-time adolescent response to incentives.” (1)<br />
Laurence Steinberg & Elizabeth Scott, Less Guilty By Reason of Adolescence: <strong>Development</strong>al Immaturity,<br />
Diminished Responsibility, and <strong>the</strong> Juvenile Death Penalty, 58 AMER. PSYCHOL. 1009 (2003).<br />
• Explains from a medical standpoint how adolescent brain development affects culpability<br />
• “In general, adolescents use a risk-reward calculus that places relatively less weight on risk, in<br />
relation to reward, than that used by adults.” (1012)<br />
• “The vast majority of adolescents who engage in criminal or delinquent behavior desist from<br />
crime as <strong>the</strong>y mature.” (note 13, at 1015)<br />
IV. Reports and O<strong>the</strong>r <strong>Advocacy</strong> Resources<br />
CHILDREN’S LAW CTR. OF MASS., UNTIL THEY DIE A NATURAL DEATH: YOUTH<br />
SENTENCED TO LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE IN MASSACHUSETTS (2009).<br />
• Study examining <strong>the</strong> imposition of juvenile life without parole in Massachusetts. Includes<br />
discussion of MA law, adolescent brain and developmental research, statistics and vignettes about<br />
<strong>the</strong> youth sentenced to LWOP in MA, discussion of <strong>the</strong> experiences of youth in adult prisons,<br />
analysis of economic costs of <strong>the</strong> sentencing practice, and a summary of global sentencing<br />
practices with respect to juvenile life without parole.<br />
Wendy Paget Henderson, Life After Roper: Using <strong>Adolescent</strong> <strong>Brain</strong> <strong>Development</strong> in Court, 11 CHILD.<br />
RTS 1, 1 (2009).<br />
• <strong>Advocacy</strong> guide for using adolescent brain research in litigation prepared by A.B.A. Children’s<br />
Rights Litigation Committee. Issues addressed include competence, sentencing mitigation,<br />
duress and coercion, differences in assessing reasonableness and recklessness for juveniles, and<br />
mental responsibility.<br />
Connie de la Vega & Michelle Leighton, Sentencing Our Children to Die in Prison: Global Law and<br />
Practice, 42 U.S.F.L. REV. 983 (2008).<br />
• Examines international norms and practices regarding juvenile life without parole.<br />
• “The United States is <strong>the</strong> only violator of <strong>the</strong> international human rights standard prohibiting<br />
juvenile LWOP sentences. With thousands of juveniles serving LWOP sentences, and none<br />
serving such sentences in <strong>the</strong> rest of <strong>the</strong> world, <strong>the</strong> United States is <strong>the</strong> only country now violating<br />
this standard” (990)
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, THE REST OF THEIR LIVES: LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE FOR YOUTH<br />
IN THE UNITED STATES IN 2008 (2008).<br />
• Executive Summary of report examining juvenile life without parole in <strong>the</strong> U.S. Discusses<br />
crimes that can lead to LWOP, sentencing practices across <strong>the</strong> states, racially discriminatory<br />
sentencing, violent experiences that youth have had in prison, international standards regarding<br />
JLWOP, and recommendations for legislatures. Updated in 2008.<br />
A.B.A. RECOMMENDATION 105C, Mitigating Circumstances in Sentencing <strong>Youth</strong>ful Offenders<br />
(2008).<br />
• ABA Recommendation calling for less punitive sentences for children under 18, recognition of<br />
youth as a mitigating factor in sentencing, and parole or early release eligibility for youthful<br />
offenders.<br />
• “The American Bar Association has a long history of recognizing that youth under 18 who are<br />
involved with <strong>the</strong> justice system should be treated differently than those who are 18 or older.<br />
• The ABA’s overall approach to juvenile justice policies has been and continues to be to strongly<br />
protect <strong>the</strong> rights of youthful offenders within all legal processes while insuring public safety.<br />
Central to this ABA premise is <strong>the</strong> understanding that youthful offenders have lesser culpability<br />
than adult offenders due to <strong>the</strong> typical behavioral characteristics inherent in adolescence. It is<br />
understood that <strong>the</strong>y can and do commit delinquent and criminal acts that have an impact on<br />
public safety, but <strong>the</strong>se actors none<strong>the</strong>less are developmentally different. They are not adults and<br />
do not have fully-formed adult characteristics.” (Introduction)<br />
Allstate Advertisement, WALL STREET JOURNAL, May 17, 2007.<br />
• Insurance ad advocating for graduated driver licensing laws on <strong>the</strong> basis of adolescent brain<br />
development. The ad pictures an image of a brain with a car-shaped hole and reads, “Why do<br />
most 16-year-olds drive like <strong>the</strong>y’re missing a part of <strong>the</strong>ir brain? BECAUSE THEY ARE.”<br />
• “Even bright, mature teenagers sometimes do things that are ‘stupid.’<br />
But when that happens, it’s not really <strong>the</strong>ir fault. It’s because <strong>the</strong>ir brain hasn’t finished<br />
developing. The underdeveloped area is called <strong>the</strong> dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex. It plays a<br />
critical role in decision making, problem solving and understanding future consequences of<br />
today’s actions. Problem is, it won’t be fully mature until <strong>the</strong>y’re into <strong>the</strong>ir 20s.”<br />
Less Guilty By Reason of Adolescence, Issue Brief (MacArthur Found. Res. Network on <strong>Adolescent</strong> Dev.<br />
& Juv. Just., 2006. http://www.adjj.org/downloads/6093issue_brief_3.pdf (last visited May 19, 2010)<br />
- Explains “immaturity gap” in adolescents who are intellectually mature but more impulsive,<br />
short-sighted, and susceptible to peer influence than adults, and argues that juveniles are less<br />
culpable than adults because of <strong>the</strong>ir immaturity. Advocates for a separate system for juvenile<br />
offenders.<br />
ABA Online: Adolescence, <strong>Brain</strong> <strong>Development</strong> and Legal Culpability, (2004)<br />
http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/Adolescence.pdf (.pdf. format)<br />
• Concise overview of <strong>the</strong> implications of adolescent brain development science on <strong>the</strong> juvenile<br />
justice system<br />
National Institute of Mental Health, Teenage <strong>Brain</strong>: A Work in Progress (2001).<br />
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/teenbrain.cfm<br />
• Brief article summarizing some of <strong>the</strong> teenage brain studies performed by 2001.<br />
• “Using functional MRI (fMRI), a team led by Dr. Deborah Yurgelun-Todd at Harvard's McLean<br />
Hospital scanned subjects' brain activity while <strong>the</strong>y identified emotions on pictures of faces<br />
displayed on a computer screen. Young teens, who characteristically perform poorly on <strong>the</strong> task,
activated <strong>the</strong> amygdala, a brain center that mediates fear and o<strong>the</strong>r "gut" reactions, more than <strong>the</strong><br />
frontal lobe. As teens grow older, <strong>the</strong>ir brain activity during this task tends to shift to <strong>the</strong> frontal<br />
lobe, leading to more reasoned perceptions and improved performance. Similarly, <strong>the</strong> researchers<br />
saw a shift in activation from <strong>the</strong> temporal lobe to <strong>the</strong> frontal lobe during a language skills task,<br />
as teens got older.” (2)<br />
V. Expert Testimony/Briefs<br />
Petitioner Brief, Graham v. Florida (2010)<br />
Successful Supreme Court brief arguing against juvenile life without parole for non-homicide offenses<br />
committed by juveniles under 18. Cites Roper and adolescent brain research extensively.<br />
Petitioner Brief, Sullivan v. Florida (2009)<br />
Brief arguing against juvenile life without parole for non-homicide offense committed by 13-year-old.<br />
Cites Roper and adolescent brain research extensively.<br />
Amici Curiae Brief of <strong>the</strong> American Psychological Association, et al., Sullivan and Graham (2009)<br />
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-7412_PetitionerAmCu4HealthOrgs.pdf<br />
The APA and o<strong>the</strong>rs’ amicus brief in Sullivan and Graham that cites heavily to new brain science<br />
Testimony of David Fassler, M.D., New Hampshire State Legislature (2004)<br />
http://ccjr.policy.net/relatives/22020.pdf (.pdf format)<br />
Testimony given to <strong>the</strong> State Legislature of New Hampshire in efforts to outlaw <strong>the</strong> juvenile death penalty<br />
in <strong>the</strong> state (relies heavily on brain development arguments)<br />
Declaration of Ruben C. Gur, Ph.D., Patterson v. Texas (2002)<br />
http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/Gur%20affidavit.pdf (.pdf format)<br />
Declaration in Patterson v. Texas (juvenile death penalty case) citing heavily upon recent science<br />
regarding adolescent brain development<br />
VI. Supreme Court Opinions<br />
Graham v. Florida – 560 U.S. ____ (2010)<br />
Supreme Court case that declared life without parole unconstitutional for juvenile offenders under 18<br />
convicted of nonhomicide crimes.<br />
Quotes from Graham v. Florida<br />
Potentially useful language from <strong>the</strong> Graham decision.<br />
Roper v. Simmons – 543 U.S. 551 (2005)<br />
Supreme Court case that declared <strong>the</strong> juvenile death penalty unconstitutional and discusses <strong>the</strong><br />
developmental differences between juveniles under age 18 and adults.<br />
Atkins v. Virginia – 536 U.S. 304 (2002)<br />
Supreme Court case that declared <strong>the</strong> death penalty for mentally retarded persons unconstitutional (uses<br />
arguments of brain development)<br />
Thompson v. Oklahoma – 487 U.S. 815 (1988)<br />
Supreme Court case that declared <strong>the</strong> death penalty illegal for youth under <strong>the</strong> age of 16.
VII. Legal Motions from MA<br />
Motion to dismiss YO (Jack Cunha) – 2009<br />
Memo of law to dismiss YO (Jack Cunha) –<br />
2009<br />
Motion to Dismiss YO (Jack Cunha) – 2007<br />
Massachusetts Exhibit Appendix (Jack Cunha) –<br />
2007<br />
VIII. Legal Motions from O<strong>the</strong>r States<br />
Petitioner Brief – Sullivan v. Florida<br />
Petitioner Brief – Graham v. Florida<br />
Pennsylvania – Amici Brief<br />
Pennsylvania – Cover Sheet<br />
Alabama – Juvenile LWOP Brief<br />
Alabama – Sentencing Transcript<br />
Colorado – Flakes v. People<br />
Colorado – Apprendi Motion<br />
IX. State Statutes<br />
Memo of Law to Dismiss (Jack Cunha) – 2007<br />
Motion to Dismiss YO (Ken King) – 2007<br />
Memo to Dismiss (Ken King) – 2007<br />
Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (Ken King) –<br />
2007<br />
Motion to Dismiss (Patricia Downey) – 2005<br />
Colorado – Cert Petition<br />
Illinois – Motion Transfer Unconstitutional<br />
Illinois – Reply Brief<br />
Illinois – Appellant Brief<br />
New Mexico – Motion to Dismiss<br />
Washington, D.C. – Motion to Dismiss<br />
Washington, D.C. – Reply Letter<br />
Washington, D.C. – 2 nd Reply Letter<br />
Chart showing how and where juvenile life without parole is imposed across 50 states (National<br />
Conference of State Legislatures)<br />
Regularly updated state-by-state statistics on juvenile life without parole:<br />
http://www.law.usfca.edu/jlwop/resourceguide.html<br />
X. Helpful Websites<br />
Laurence Steinberg Publications (Website)<br />
http://www.temple.edu/psychology/lds/publications.htm<br />
Laurence Steinberg is a professor of Psychology at Temple University and a leading authority on<br />
psychological development during adolescence. Pdf versions of his publications are available on this site.<br />
Campaign for <strong>the</strong> Fair Sentencing of <strong>Youth</strong> (Website)<br />
http://www.endjlwop.org/<br />
The national campaign to end juvenile life without parole includes information about state sentencing<br />
practices and an extensive advocacy resource bank, including a section on adolescent brain research.
Most of <strong>the</strong> materials for Sullivan and Graham are available on <strong>the</strong> site, and <strong>the</strong> site is updated regularly<br />
with new resources.<br />
American Bar Association: Juvenile Justice Committee (Website)<br />
http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/<br />
The ABA’s Juvenile Justice website has a myriad of resources regarding adolescent brain development,<br />
and simple searches of brain development will yield current articles as well as information about <strong>the</strong><br />
Graham, Roper, and Atkins cases. The best way to navigate this site is by using <strong>the</strong> search function.<br />
PBS Frontline: Inside <strong>the</strong> Teenage <strong>Brain</strong> (Website/Program)<br />
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/teenbrain/<br />
This 2002 PBS Frontline specifically dealt with recent technology in <strong>the</strong> field of neuroimaging as it<br />
relates to adolescent brain development. The show gives an in-depth overview of <strong>the</strong> science and<br />
technology involved, includes interviews, and discusses some of <strong>the</strong> implications of <strong>the</strong> findings. Watch<br />
<strong>the</strong> entire show online, read <strong>the</strong> transcript, and read interviews w/ experts.<br />
MacArthur Foundation on <strong>Adolescent</strong> <strong>Development</strong> and Juvenile Justice (Website)<br />
http://www.adjj.org/content/index.php<br />
The MacArthur Foundation’s website has numerous documents, briefs, and PowerPoint presentations all<br />
discussing adolescent development (immaturity, cognitive abilities, risk-assessment, etc). The Foundation<br />
consists of some of <strong>the</strong> leading researches in <strong>the</strong> field of adolescent development as it relates to <strong>the</strong><br />
juvenile justice system.<br />
National Juvenile Justice Network (Website)<br />
http://njjn.org/<br />
The National Juvenile Justice Network website posts a wealth of resources, including its own research<br />
publications, legislative material, and publications on a variety of issues in juvenile justice.
<strong>Adolescent</strong> <strong>Brain</strong> <strong>Development</strong><br />
Quick Reference Experts List (DRAFT)<br />
BAIRD, ABIGAIL, Ph.D.<br />
Neuroscientist – Dartmouth College<br />
Phone: (603) 646-9022 Fax: Email: abigail.a.baird@dartmouth.edu<br />
Website: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~psych/people/faculty/a-baird.html<br />
Worked with Deborah Yurgelun-Todd (below) on <strong>the</strong> 1999 study involving teens’ identification of<br />
emotions. In subsequent experiments, Dr. Baird learned that teens’ correct recognition of emotional<br />
responses significantly improved when <strong>the</strong> faces were those of people <strong>the</strong>y knew, suggesting that<br />
adolescents are more prone to pay attention to things that are more closely related to <strong>the</strong>m.<br />
BJORK, JAMES, Ph.D.<br />
Researcher – National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.<br />
Phone:<br />
Website:<br />
Fax: Email:<br />
Researcher at <strong>the</strong> National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism who used MRI technology to scan<br />
brains of 12 adolescents (aged 12-17) and 12 adults (aged 22-28) comparing <strong>the</strong>ir responses to simulated<br />
situations involving risks and rewards. The study found that youth tend to use lower activation of <strong>the</strong> part<br />
of <strong>the</strong> brain associated with motivating behavior toward <strong>the</strong> prospect of rewards. Dr. Bjork notes that <strong>the</strong><br />
study “may help to explain why so many young people have difficulty achieving long-term goals.”<br />
FASSLER, DAVID, M.D.<br />
Clinical Associate Professor – UVM Medical School, Psychiatry Dept.<br />
Phone: (802) 865-3450<br />
Website:<br />
Fax: Email: David.Fassler@uvm.edu<br />
<strong>Adolescent</strong> psychiatrist who testified on behalf of <strong>the</strong> American Psychiatric Association in Nevada in<br />
2003 and New Hampshire in 2004 to try and persuade <strong>the</strong> state legislatures to abolish <strong>the</strong> death penalty<br />
for juveniles. Both states abolished <strong>the</strong> practice after Dr. Fassler’s testimony, which used studies<br />
regarding <strong>the</strong> development of <strong>the</strong> adolescent brain as part of <strong>the</strong> basis of his argument.<br />
GIEDD, JAY, M.D.<br />
Neuroscientist – National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)<br />
Phone: (301) 435-4517<br />
Website:<br />
Fax: Email: GieddJ@intra.nimh.nih.gov<br />
Has performed extensive research involving almost 2,000 kids and adolescents using MRI technology<br />
that demonstrates that adolescent brains are still developing and are different from fully-developed adult<br />
brains. Dr. Giedd has created records of each of <strong>the</strong> youth he has scanned, taking MRI every two years,<br />
showing <strong>the</strong> growth and development of <strong>the</strong> brain over <strong>the</strong> years. His research shows that especially in<br />
early adolescence, <strong>the</strong> brain is undergoing drastic changes.
GOLDBERG, ELKHONON Ph.D.<br />
Clinical Professor – NYU Medical School<br />
Phone: (212) 541 6412 Fax: (212) 765 7158 Email: eg@elkhonongoldberg.com<br />
Website: http://www.elkhonongoldberg.com/<br />
Authored The Executive <strong>Brain</strong>, Frontal Lobes and <strong>the</strong> Civilized Mind, (2001), which contends that <strong>the</strong><br />
frontal lobe is responsible for decision making, planning, cognition, judgment, and o<strong>the</strong>r behavior skills<br />
associated with criminal culpability. While Dr. Goldberg is not juvenile specific, his findings are<br />
extremely important when combined with work that proves that <strong>the</strong> frontal lobe is still undergoing<br />
significant changes during adolescence.<br />
GOGTAY, NITIN M.D.<br />
Psychiatrist - NIMH<br />
Phone: (301) 443-4513<br />
Website:<br />
Fax: Email:<br />
Led a team that used MRI technology to study youth ages 4 to 21 to prove that <strong>the</strong> frontal lobe is one of<br />
<strong>the</strong> last areas of <strong>the</strong> brain to fully mature. The frontal lobe is thought to be <strong>the</strong> part of <strong>the</strong> brain most<br />
closely associated to factors related to criminal culpability such as decision making, risk assessment, etc.<br />
GRISSO, THOMAS, Ph.D.<br />
Professor – UMASS Medical School, Psychiatry Dept.<br />
Phone: (508)-856-3625 Fax: (508)-856-6426 Email: Thomas.Grisso@umassmed.edu<br />
Website: http://www.umassmed.edu/cmhsr/faculty/Grisso.cfm<br />
Nationally known juvenile forensics expert and co-editor of <strong>Youth</strong> on Trial, (2000), which argues in part<br />
that <strong>the</strong> psychological development of adolescents affects <strong>the</strong>ir abilities to comprehend <strong>the</strong> juvenile<br />
justice process, and also makes <strong>the</strong>m less morally culpable. The book specifically takes on <strong>the</strong> issue of<br />
“Adult Time for Adult Crime.”<br />
GRUBER, STACI, Ph.D.<br />
Neuropsychologist – McLean Hospital, Belmont, MA<br />
Phone: (617)-855-3238<br />
Website:<br />
Fax: Email:<br />
GUR, RUBEN, Ph.D.<br />
Neuropsychologist – University of Pennsylvania Hospital<br />
Phone: (215) 662-2915 Fax: Email: gur@bbl.med.upenn.edu<br />
Website: http://www.med.upenn.edu/ins/faculty/gur.htm<br />
Submitted declaration in Patterson v. Texas (2002), stressing that adolescents were less culpable than<br />
adults. Discusses how <strong>the</strong> parts of <strong>the</strong> brain most related to criminal culpability are also <strong>the</strong> latest parts to<br />
develop.
SCOTT, ELIZABETH, J.D.<br />
Professor – University of Virginia Law School<br />
Phone: (434) 924-3217 Fax: (804) 924-7536 Email: es@virginia.edu<br />
Website: http://www.law.virginia.edu/lawweb/faculty.nsf/FHPbI/5417<br />
Co-director and founder of <strong>the</strong> Center for Children, Families and Law and law professor at University of<br />
Virginia who specializes in juvenile and family law. Author of “Blaming <strong>Youth</strong>,” (2002), an essay which<br />
uses scientific research to demonstrate why juveniles are not as culpable from a legal perspective.<br />
SOWELL, ELIZABETH, Ph.D.<br />
Professor – UCLA Medical School, Neurology Dept.<br />
Phone: (310) 206-2101 Fax: Email: esowell@loni.ucla.edu<br />
Website: http://www.neurology.ucla.edu/faculty/SowellE.htm<br />
Led studies of brain development from adolescence to adulthood. Found that during adolescence, <strong>the</strong><br />
frontal lobe of <strong>the</strong> brain (<strong>the</strong> part that relates to <strong>the</strong> maturation of cognitive processing and o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
‘executive functions), undergoes <strong>the</strong> most significant changes. The study found that <strong>the</strong> frontal lobe was<br />
<strong>the</strong> last part of <strong>the</strong> brain to fully develop, and thus while adolescent brains may be similar to adults, <strong>the</strong>y<br />
differ in <strong>the</strong>ir abilities to reason.<br />
TOGA, ARTHUR, Ph.D.<br />
Professor – UCLA Medical School, Neurology Dept.<br />
Phone: (310)206-2101 Fax: (310)206-5518 Email: toga@loni.ucla.edu<br />
Website: http://www.neurology.ucla.edu/faculty/TogaA.htm<br />
Neuroimaging specialist who worked with NIMH to render MRI scans into a 4-D time-lapse model<br />
demonstrating <strong>the</strong> evolution of a child’s brain into adulthood (<strong>the</strong> 4 th dimension is rate of change). The<br />
model demonstrates <strong>the</strong> growth and movement of different brain matter as children grow into adults.<br />
YURGELUN-TODD, DEBORAH Ph.D.<br />
Neuropsychologist – McLean Hospital, Belmont, MA<br />
Phone: (617)-855-3238<br />
Website:<br />
Fax: Email:<br />
Performed a study comparing what parts of <strong>the</strong> brain adolescents and adults use when responding to<br />
emotions. The study concluded that adolescents tend to rely on <strong>the</strong> part of <strong>the</strong> brain responsible for “gut<br />
reactions,” in contrast to adults who more often use <strong>the</strong> part of <strong>the</strong> brain responsible for more rational (not<br />
based on emotional responses) decisions.
Limbic System<br />
<strong>Adolescent</strong> <strong>Brain</strong> <strong>Development</strong><br />
Understanding <strong>the</strong> Parts of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Brain</strong><br />
Amygdala<br />
The Adult <strong>Brain</strong><br />
The Frontal Lobe, often called <strong>the</strong> “command center” of <strong>the</strong> brain, is <strong>the</strong> part of <strong>the</strong> brain<br />
that controls <strong>the</strong> decision making process for adults, including long-term planning, riskassessment,<br />
impulse control, and o<strong>the</strong>r behaviors associated with criminal culpability. It is<br />
also one of <strong>the</strong> last parts of <strong>the</strong> brain to fully mature (in <strong>the</strong> early 20s). 1 This late maturation<br />
process suggests that adolescents are not as capable as adults of weighing long-term<br />
consequences, and evaluating risk-assessment.<br />
The Prefrontal Cortex is responsible for cognitive processing, problem solving, and<br />
emotional control in adults. There is a stark contrast in brain maturation (Myelination)<br />
between youth aged 12-16 and young adults (23-30), especially in <strong>the</strong> Frontal Lobe and<br />
Prefrontal Cortex. 2 This difference suggests that adults are more capable of controlling <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
emotions and making more rational decisions than adolescents.<br />
The <strong>Adolescent</strong> <strong>Brain</strong><br />
The Limbic System regulates hormonal processing, which is overly active in adolescents, 3<br />
and also is responsible for handling emotional reactions. <strong>Adolescent</strong>s tend to use <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
Limbic System more often in <strong>the</strong> decision making process, since <strong>the</strong>ir Frontal Lobes are<br />
not fully developed, which results in adolescents making more decisions based on<br />
emotional reactions ra<strong>the</strong>r than reasoning, weighing of long term consequences, or<br />
planning. 4<br />
The Amygdala, part of <strong>the</strong> Limbic System, is responsible for impulse reactions, emotional<br />
reactions, fear, and is also used in <strong>the</strong> decision-making process of adolescents.<br />
Developing adolescents tend to use <strong>the</strong>ir Amygdala when responding to o<strong>the</strong>r people’s<br />
emotions, yielding more reactionary, less reasoned perceptions of situations than adults. 5<br />
Juvenile Defense Network ~ Lawyers Helping Lawyers Helping Kids
Footnotes:<br />
_______________________________________________________________________<br />
1. Fagan, Jeffrey. “Adoescents, Maturity, and <strong>the</strong> Law.” The American Prospect. August, 2005.<br />
2. National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). Teenage <strong>Brain</strong>: A Work in Progress. 2001.<br />
3. <strong>Adolescent</strong>s going through puberty experience increased hormone levels. For example, <strong>the</strong> production of testosterone, a<br />
hormone closely associated with aggression, increases approximately tenfold in boys. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse<br />
and Alcoholism (NIAAA). <strong>Adolescent</strong> <strong>Brain</strong>s Show Reduced Reward Anticipation. 2004.<br />
4. McNamee, Rebecca. An Overview of <strong>the</strong> Science of <strong>Brain</strong> <strong>Development</strong>. Presented at <strong>the</strong> Coalition for<br />
Juvenile Justice Annual Conference. 2006.<br />
5. NIMH. Id.<br />
Images Adapted From:<br />
_______________________________________________________________________<br />
1. PBS: The Secret Life of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Brain</strong>: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/brain/<br />
2. Amygdala/Limbic System: http://www.memorylossonline.com/glossary/amygdala.html<br />
Online Resources:<br />
_______________________________________________________________________<br />
1. ABA: Adolescence, <strong>Brain</strong> <strong>Development</strong> and Legal Culpability<br />
http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/Adolescence.pdf<br />
2. American Psychologist: Less Guilty by Reasons of Adolescence<br />
http://ccjr.policy.net/cjedfund/resourcekit/Psychology_Less_Guilty.pdf<br />
3. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism: <strong>Adolescent</strong> <strong>Brain</strong>s Show Reduced Reward Anticipation.<br />
http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/feb2004/niaaa-25.htm<br />
4. National Institute of Mental Health: Imaging Study Shows <strong>Brain</strong> Maturing.<br />
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/press/prbrainmaturing.cfm<br />
5. PBS Frontline: Inside <strong>the</strong> Teenage <strong>Brain</strong><br />
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/teenbrain/<br />
6. Roper v. Simmons: Amici Curiae Brief of <strong>the</strong> American Bar Association, et al.<br />
http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/simmons/aba.pdf<br />
7. Roper v. Simmons: Amici Curiae Brief of <strong>the</strong> American Medical Association, et al.<br />
http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/simmons/ama.pdf<br />
8. Roper v. Simmons: Amici Curiae Brief of <strong>the</strong> American Psychological Association, et al.<br />
http://www.apa.org/psyclaw/roper-v-simmons.pdf<br />
9. Science Magazine: Crime, Culpability, and <strong>the</strong> <strong>Adolescent</strong> <strong>Brain</strong><br />
http://www.wpic.pitt.edu/research/lncd/papers/ScienceLunaOct2004.pdf<br />
10. Science News: Teen <strong>Brain</strong>s on Trial.<br />
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040508/bob9.asp<br />
11. Juvenile Defense Network: Roper v. Simmons and ways to incorporate it into your practice.<br />
http://www.youthadvocacyproject.org/pdfs/Roper%20fact%20sheet.pdf<br />
This project is supported by Grant # 2005 JF-FX 0055 awarded by <strong>the</strong> Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S.<br />
Department of Justice to <strong>the</strong> Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety Programs <strong>Division</strong> and subgranted to <strong>the</strong> Committee for Public Counsel Services.<br />
Points of view in this document are those of <strong>the</strong> author(s) and do not necessarily represent <strong>the</strong> official position or policies of <strong>the</strong> U.S. Department of Justice or <strong>the</strong><br />
Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety Programs <strong>Division</strong>.<br />
Juvenile Defense Network<br />
<strong>Youth</strong> <strong>Advocacy</strong> Project/CPCS<br />
Ten Malcolm X Blvd.<br />
Roxbury, MA 02119<br />
Tel: (617) 445-5640<br />
http://www.youthadvocacyproject.org/jdn.htm
<strong>Adolescent</strong> <strong>Brain</strong> <strong>Development</strong><br />
Implications in <strong>the</strong> Courtroom<br />
Adolescence has long been known as a time of significant psychosocial development. Recent advances in<br />
fMRI (functional MRI) technology have been critical in understanding adolescence as a crucial period of brain<br />
development. 1 Since <strong>the</strong> science is relatively new, we do not know how it will affect juvenile justice<br />
jurisprudence; a system focused on behavior not anatomy. Science supports <strong>the</strong> notion that anatomy affects<br />
behavior, and as juvenile defenders we need to educate <strong>the</strong> court in this area and use <strong>the</strong> research to<br />
advocate for our clients.<br />
Below are some suggestions on how to use this new brain information in your practice. There are many ways<br />
to utilize <strong>the</strong> research, from pre-trial issues to jury instructions. However, counsel should be aware that <strong>the</strong>re<br />
is no case law in Massachusetts addressing <strong>the</strong> admissibility of brain science testimony and, <strong>the</strong>refore, be<br />
prepared for any objections. We also suggest counsel submit a separate jury instruction on adolescent brain<br />
development in every juvenile trial to highlight that kids are different.<br />
<strong>Brain</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Facts & Implications in <strong>the</strong> Courtroom:<br />
Adolescence is a time of significant neurobiological and psychosocial development, meaning that adolescent<br />
behaviors are less predictive than adult behavior of personality characteristics and future behavior. 2 This fact<br />
can be used in disposition/sentencing to argue that children can be rehabilitated and that long, and<br />
especially adult sentences, are not consistent with research that indicates adolescents behavior can change<br />
and prior behavior is not as predictive of future behavior. Additionally, <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong>ir brains are not fully<br />
developed can also be used when seeking relief from <strong>the</strong> sex offender registry, a consequence which<br />
neglects to consider that youth can change <strong>the</strong>ir “criminal” behavior.<br />
<strong>Adolescent</strong> brains undergo a second wave of significant development during <strong>the</strong> teen years, (primarily<br />
concentrated in <strong>the</strong> Frontal Lobe), meaning that <strong>the</strong>ir capacity to make decisions, use judgment, respond to<br />
o<strong>the</strong>rs’ emotions, and assess long-term consequences is immature, and still developing. 3 This fact can be<br />
used as a trial issue and as part of jury instructions. Since adolescents tend to respond to certain stimuli<br />
using <strong>the</strong>ir Amygdala, <strong>the</strong> youth, it can be argued, may not be able to form <strong>the</strong> requisite intent for <strong>the</strong> crime<br />
charged. If you have a client with a history of trauma <strong>the</strong> intent issue, especially in assault type cases, is even<br />
more compelling. Trauma during childhood can become biologically encoded in <strong>the</strong> brain, affecting brain<br />
development. This encoding can impair many functions of <strong>the</strong> brain including memory, reality testing, and<br />
emotional processing, and can cause increased feelings of anxiety, arousal, irritability, depression, and<br />
aggression. The more chronic <strong>the</strong> trauma, <strong>the</strong> stronger <strong>the</strong> impact. 4<br />
Even as <strong>the</strong>ir brains develop, and <strong>the</strong>ir cognitive abilities mature, adolescents continue to display<br />
psychosocial immaturity. <strong>Adolescent</strong>s are more prone to peer pressure, tend to focus on reward over risk, act<br />
impulsively, and are present instead of future oriented. 5 While this is based on developmental research, it is<br />
consistent with adolescent brain research findings and is relevant in joint venture cases.<br />
During adolescence, <strong>the</strong> brain undergoes significant maturation called Myelination, which streamlines <strong>the</strong><br />
connections inside <strong>the</strong> brain, allowing for more reasoned responses. The maturation process is not<br />
completed until young adulthood (perhaps as late as age 25), making <strong>the</strong> brains of adolescents inherently<br />
less capable of balancing <strong>the</strong>ir emotions, and more likely to exhibit risk-taking behavior. 6 This fact is relevant<br />
in crafting conditions of probation that meet your client’s developmental needs. The imposition of multiple<br />
conditions is counterintuitive to what we know about adolescents; <strong>the</strong>y are generally poor decision makers<br />
and lack judgment in assessing long-term consequences.<br />
The Frontal Lobe, often called <strong>the</strong> command center of <strong>the</strong> brain, is not fully developed in adolescents so <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
ability to make decisions, respond to o<strong>the</strong>r people, use reasoned judgment, and assess long-term<br />
consequences is immature and often spontaneous. 7 This is relevant in cases dealing with police<br />
interrogation and waiver of Miranda. Since <strong>the</strong>ir frontal lobes are less developed, adolescents are likely to<br />
be more vulnerable and susceptible to police pressure.<br />
Juvenile Defense Network ~ Lawyers Helping Lawyers Helping Kids
Footnotes:<br />
_______________________________________________________________________<br />
1. American Bar Association (ABA): Juvenile Justice Center. Adolescence, <strong>Brain</strong> <strong>Development</strong>, and Legal Culpability.<br />
2004. Prior to <strong>the</strong> advancements of fMRI technology in <strong>the</strong> 1990s, <strong>the</strong> only studies done on adolescent brains were<br />
performed on cadaver tissue, since X-rays and o<strong>the</strong>r means of testing were deemed potentially harmful to children.<br />
2. Scott & Grisso. The Evolution of Adolescence: A <strong>Development</strong>al Perspective on Juvenile Justice Reform. J. Crim L. &<br />
Criminology, 137. 1997. National Institue of Mental Health (NIMH). Imaging Study Shows <strong>Brain</strong> Maturing. 2004.<br />
3. Kagan, J., Baird. “<strong>Brain</strong> and Behavioral <strong>Development</strong> During Childhood and Adolescence.” The New Cognitive<br />
Neurosciences III. Gazzaniga (ed), MIT Press. Cambridge, MA. November, 2004.<br />
4. Teicher, M. Child Abuse Hurts <strong>the</strong> <strong>Brain</strong>. http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/05.22/01-brain.html.<br />
5. Steinberg, L. & Scott. “Less Guilty by Reason of Adolescence: <strong>Development</strong>al Immaturity, Diminished Responsibility, and<br />
<strong>the</strong> Juvenile Death Penalty.” American Psychologist. 58(12): 2003. Grisso, Id.<br />
6. Beckman, Mary. “Crime, Culpability, and <strong>the</strong> <strong>Adolescent</strong> <strong>Brain</strong>.” Science Magazine. Vol. 305: 2004.<br />
7. NIMH. Teenage <strong>Brain</strong>: A Work in Progress. 2001. Steinberg, Id.<br />
Image Adapted From:<br />
_______________________________________________________________________<br />
1. Franklin Institute: The Human <strong>Brain</strong>. http://www.fi.edu/brain/index.htm<br />
Online Resources:<br />
_______________________________________________________________________<br />
1. ABA: Adolescence, <strong>Brain</strong> <strong>Development</strong> and Legal Culpability<br />
http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/Adolescence.pdf<br />
2. American Psychologist: Less Guilty by Reasons of Adolescence<br />
http://ccjr.policy.net/cjedfund/resourcekit/Psychology_Less_Guilty.pdf<br />
3. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism: <strong>Adolescent</strong> <strong>Brain</strong>s Show Reduced Reward Anticipation.<br />
http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/feb2004/niaaa-25.htm<br />
4. National Institute of Mental Health: Imaging Study Shows <strong>Brain</strong> Maturing.<br />
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/press/prbrainmaturing.cfm<br />
5. PBS Frontline: Inside <strong>the</strong> Teenage <strong>Brain</strong><br />
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/teenbrain/<br />
6. Roper v. Simmons: Amici Curiae Brief of <strong>the</strong> American Bar Association, et al.<br />
http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/simmons/aba.pdf<br />
7. Roper v. Simmons: Amici Curiae Brief of <strong>the</strong> American Medical Association, et al.<br />
http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/simmons/ama.pdf<br />
8. Roper v. Simmons: Amici Curiae Brief of <strong>the</strong> American Psychological Association, et al.<br />
http://www.apa.org/psyclaw/roper-v-simmons.pdf<br />
9. Science Magazine: Crime, Culpability, and <strong>the</strong> <strong>Adolescent</strong> <strong>Brain</strong><br />
http://www.wpic.pitt.edu/research/lncd/papers/ScienceLunaOct2004.pdf<br />
10. Science News: Teen <strong>Brain</strong>s on Trial.<br />
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040508/bob9.asp<br />
11. Juvenile Defense Network: Roper v. Simmons and ways to incorporate it into your practice.<br />
http://www.youthadvocacyproject.org/pdfs/Roper%20fact%20sheet.pdf<br />
This project is supported by Grant # 2005 JF-FX 0055 awarded by <strong>the</strong> Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S.<br />
Department of Justice to <strong>the</strong> Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety Programs <strong>Division</strong> and subgranted to <strong>the</strong> Committee for Public Counsel Services.<br />
Points of view in this document are those of <strong>the</strong> author(s) and do not necessarily represent <strong>the</strong> official position or policies of <strong>the</strong> U.S. Department of Justice or <strong>the</strong><br />
Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety Programs <strong>Division</strong>.<br />
Juvenile Defense Network<br />
<strong>Youth</strong> <strong>Advocacy</strong> Project/CPCS<br />
Ten Malcolm X Blvd.<br />
Roxbury, MA 02119<br />
Tel: (617) 445-5640<br />
http://www.youthadvocacyproject.org/jdn.htm