Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:33:04.791Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

In Defense of Developmental Science in Juvenile Sentencing: A Response to Christopher Berk

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2019

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Symposium on Christopher Berk’s “The Troubled Foundations of Miller v. Alabama”
Copyright
© 2019 American Bar Foundation 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Berk, Christopher.Children, Development, and the Troubled Foundations of Miller v. Alabama.” Law & Social Inquiry 43, no. 3 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1017/lsi.2018.18.Google Scholar
Davis, Samuel, Scott, Elizabeth, Wadlington, Walter, and Weithorn, Lois. Children in the Legal System, 5th ed. St. Paul, MN: Foundation Press, 2014.Google Scholar
Graham, Sandra, and Lowery, Brian. “Priming Unconscious Racial Stereotypes About Adolescent Offenders.” Law and Human Behavior 28 (2004): 483504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henning, Kristin.Criminalizing Normal Adolescent Behavior in Communities of Color: The Role of Prosecutors in Juvenile Justice Reform.” Cornell Law Review 98 (2013): 383461.Google Scholar
Huntington, Clare, and Scott, Elizabeth. “Reconceptualizing Childhood: A Progressive Framework for the 21st Century.” Michigan Law Review (forthcoming 2019).Google Scholar
Icenogle, Grace, et al.Adolescents’ Cognitive Capacity Reaches Adult Levels Prior to Their Psychosocial Maturity: Evidence for a ‘Maturity Gap’ in a Multinational Sample.” Law and Human Behavior 43 (2019): 6985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moffitt, Terrie E.Life-Course-Persistent and Adolescence-Limited Antisocial Behavior: A 10-Year Research Review and a Research Agenda.” In Causes of Conduct Disorder and Juvenile Delinquency, edited by Lahey, Benjamin B., Moffitt, Terrie E., and Caspi, Avshalom. New York: Guilford Press, 2003.Google Scholar
Scott, Elizabeth.The Legal Construction of Childhood.” Hofstra Law Review 29 (2000): 541–88.Google Scholar
Scott, Elizabeth, and Steinberg, Laurence. “Blaming Youth.” Texas Law Review 81 (2003): 799840.Google Scholar
Scott, Elizabeth, and Steinberg, Laurence. Rethinking Juvenile Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008.Google Scholar
Scott, Elizabeth, Bonnie, Richard, and Steinberg, Laurence. “Young Adulthood as a Transitional Legal Category: Science, Social Change and Justice Policy.” Fordham Law Review 85, no. 2 (2016): 641–66.Google Scholar
Steinberg, Laurence.Commentary on Special Issue on the Adolescent Brain: Redefining Adolescence.”Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 70 (2016): 343–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steinberg, Laurence, and Scott, Elizabeth. “Less Guilty by Reason of Adolescence: Developmental Immaturity, Diminished Responsibility, and the Juvenile Death Penalty.” American Psychologist 58, no. 12 (2003): 1009–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steinberg, Laurence, et al.Are Adolescents Less Mature than Adults? Minors’ Access to Abortion, the Juvenile Death Penalty, and the Alleged APA ‘Flip-Flop.’American Psychologist 64 (2009): 583–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walkover, Andrew.The Infancy Defense in the New Juvenile Court.” UCLA Law Review 31 (1984): 503–62.Google Scholar
Yaffe, Gideon. The Age of Culpability: Children and the Nature of Criminal Responsibility. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

CASES CITED

Graham v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2011 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012).Google Scholar
Roper v. Simmons, 125 S. Ct. 1183 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar