RESUMEN
Recent United States Supreme Court decisions in Miller v. Alabama (2012) and Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016) have created the need to resentence individuals who received a sentence of mandatory life without parole (LWOP) for offenses committed when they were younger than 18 years old. Neither of these decisions explicitly cite reoffense risk as a sentencing criterion, but a careful reading of the reasoning in these cases suggests that such a risk should be among the considerations addressed by resentencing courts. If so, important theoretical and scientific questions are raised about the nature of risk assessment tools, in particular the distinction between static and dynamic risk factors. Additionally, the novelty of LWOP resentencing raises further questions about the applicability of these tools to individuals who have been incarcerated for long periods of time. We address these questions, call for additional research on dynamic risk factors, and offer recommendations for professionals involved in these types of assessments.
Asunto(s)
Criminales/legislación & jurisprudencia , Delincuencia Juvenil/legislación & jurisprudencia , Reincidencia , Medición de Riesgo/métodos , Adolescente , Desarrollo del Adolescente , Alabama , Criminales/psicología , Humanos , Louisiana , Psicología del Adolescente , Factores de Riesgo , Decisiones de la Corte Suprema , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
Behavioral health needs in justice-involved adolescents are an increasing concern, as it has been estimated that two-thirds of youths in the juvenile justice system now meet the criteria for one or more psychological disorders. This article describes the application of the Sequential Intercept Model (SIM), developed to describe five "points of interception" from standard prosecution into rehabilitation-oriented alternatives for adults (Munetz & Griffin, 2006), to juvenile justice. The five SIM intercepts are: (1) first contact with law enforcement or emergency services; (2) initial hearings and detention following arrest; (3) jails and courts (including problem-solving courts); (4) re-entry from jails, prisons and forensic hospitals; and (5) community corrections and community support, including probation and parole. Modifying the SIM for application with justice-involved adolescents, this article describes three examples of interventions at different intercepts: Intercept 1 (the Philadelphia Police School Diversion Program), Intercept 3 (problem-solving courts for juveniles), and Intercept 5 (juvenile probation). Relevant research evidence for each example is reviewed, and the further application of this model to juveniles is described. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.