The varying threshold of competence to proceed in juvenile court: Opinions of judges, attorneys, and forensic examiners

This study investigated whether professionals who are most directly involved in the determination of juvenile competence to proceed in juvenile court (JCTP) believe that the threshold of JCTP should vary depending on the type of juvenile court hearing. One-hundred, sixty-three participants were 73 juvenile/family court judges, 59 juvenile defense attorneys (i.e., public defenders who represent juveniles in juvenile court, and 31 forensic examiners (i.e., psychologists and psychiatrists who can evaluate JCTP) from Colorado, Florida, and South Carolina. On a survey, participants used a 5-point Likert scale to rate the relevance of 15 functional capacities (e.g., capacity to possess basic knowledge of legal strategies and options) associated with JCTP in three types of juvenile court hearings in which a juvenile is: (a) being considered for transfer to criminal court; (b) charged with a felony; and (c) charged with a misdemeanor. When giving their ratings, participants were asked to indicate which capacities they believe may be relevant for determining JCTP. Findings show that, as predicted, these professionals believe that the threshold for JCTP should be higher in a transfer hearing than that of a felony hearing, which in turn, should be higher than that of a misdemeanor hearing. Findings also show that judges provided ratings of lower relevance compared to those of attorneys and forensic examiners. These findings may provide a starting point for developing a "legal consensus" regarding JCTP, and assist legislators and judges in law-making and forensic examiners in completing juvenile competency evaluations.