Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

A comprehensive update and evaluation of state and federal statutes on competency to stand trial: Dusky, Jackson, Sell, and Olmstead considerations.
Competency to stand trial (CST) has become one of the most significant mental health issues facing the criminal justice system. What has been dubbed the “competency crisis” has been attributed to the ever-increasing referrals, rising costs, and limited availability for inpatient restoration. Concerns regarding criminal competencies have reached the highest branch of the judiciary, and each time, the Court opined that decisions rest with the state. With the goal of evaluating similarities and differences among state laws and procedures, state statutes were reviewed to identify the criteria being used to evaluate CST, the length of time deemed “reasonable” to restore competence, the legality of forcible medication for the sole purpose of restoring competence, and approved locations of restoration. With regard to criteria, the vast majority of states legislate the use of Dusky some with supplementary capabilities with treatment locations being highly restrictive to expansive. Reasonable time to restoration was less homogenous with time periods ranging from 30 days to the maximum length of sentence for the charge; several states take a hybrid approach combining time period with the maximum sentence based on the seriousness of the charge. Lastly, it was found that very few states have adopted the Sell criteria though the use of forcible medication is permissible. Given the profound impact that all of these decisions have on an individual’s civil liberties, it is time for states to review their laws and evaluate the impact of these decisions on individuals not yet convicted of a crime. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)
The risks and consequences of innocence in school discipline: Implications for policy and research.
Since the 1980s, schools across the United States have become increasingly punitive in their responses to student misconduct, leading to the “criminalization of school discipline” (e.g., zero-tolerance policies and police presence in schools). Research has documented the direct and indirect ways in which such punitive responses can increase a student’s likelihood of later involvement with the legal system—a phenomenon referred to as the “school-to-prison pipeline” (STPP). Whereas school criminalization and the STPP have been well-documented and researched, scholars have yet to examine how schools’ disciplinary practices may affect students innocent of any wrongdoing. The present review integrates research on school discipline and wrongful conviction to examine how school disciplinary practices can put innocent youth at risk of false confession and wrongful discipline or conviction, and the associated consequences. In doing so, it is argued that school criminalization has led to a climate wherein students’ guilt is presumed; they are cast as criminals, are not guaranteed the legal safeguards aimed at protecting the innocent, and are frequently interrogated by school authorities with the same accusatorial techniques used by police with adult criminal suspects. Presumptions of guilt in schools’ disciplinary practices and frequent school–police collaboration lead to a heightened risk of innocent youth, especially youth of color, falsely confessing and subsequently being wrongfully disciplined or convicted. Preliminary suggestions are provided for improving school investigation and reducing false confessions from innocent students, and for future research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)
Parent advice to children during interrogations: Do crime severity and perceptions of consequences matter?
Although many jurisdictions assume that the presence of a parent during youth interrogation protects the child’s rights, research on factors that influence parents’ behavior and advice is limited. The current study examined factors that influence parental advice to their children regarding Miranda waiver, including the severity of the crime and perceived consequences of adjudication. In an online survey, 997 parents were presented with personalized vignettes in which their child was accused of a crime that varied in severity. We asked parents what advice they would give their child regarding Miranda waiver, the motivation(s) for their advice, and the consequences they believed would be associated with potential adjudication. As predicted, we found that as the severity of the crime increased, so did the number of perceived consequences, which in turn led to an increased likelihood of parents advising their child to assert their Miranda rights. Additionally, a majority of parents cited wanting to protect their child’s rights as the motivation for giving advice to assert Miranda. However, parents who advised their child to talk with the police reported they would do so because they also believed it protected their child and was important for them to be honest and take responsibility for their actions. Our results contextualize past research related to parental advice during interrogation and provide support for scholarship that theorizes parents may be influenced by competing roles in the interrogation room. Findings suggest the need for additional policy protections for youth during interrogation, even for interrogations about lower-level offenses. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)
The impact of race on predictors of parents’ advice to children regarding Miranda waivers.
Judges often use parental presence to support the validity of youth Miranda waivers, despite a lack of supporting research. Research on factors that influence parents’ behavior during youth interrogation is limited and does not account for the impact of race. The current study involved presenting 763 parents with vignettes in which their child was suspected of committing an offense to examine how race, perceptions of police legitimacy, interrogation knowledge, and knowledge of adjudication consequences independently and collectively predict how parents believe they will advise their child regarding Miranda waiver. Perceptions of police legitimacy mediated the relationship between race and parents’ expectations of advice; Black parents reported lower perceptions of police legitimacy than White parents and, in turn, were more likely to believe they would advise their children to assert rights. In addition, greater knowledge of juvenile interrogation procedures and greater knowledge of adjudication consequences were associated with an increased likelihood that parents believed they would advise their children to assert their rights. Race did not interact with interrogation knowledge or with adjudication consequences knowledge to predict parents’ expected advice. Results of the study demonstrate that parent involvement in Miranda waiver and interrogation is likely shaped by parent-specific factors, including race and knowledge of legal procedures. These findings provide support that the current manner in which judges assess for Miranda waiver validity is not comprehensive, and therefore youth—particularly youth of color—may not be adequately protected during interrogation procedures. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)
Parental drug use as a form of potential child maltreatment in the United States: A review of state statutes.
Parental substance use can be considered a form of child abuse or neglect when it interferes with parents’ ability to care for their child, exposes their child to harmful substances or an unsafe environment, or leads to injury of the child. Many mandated reporters may not be aware of their obligation to report parental substance use when it meets the criteria for child maltreatment. This study reviewed all 50 U.S. states’ statutes related to parental substance use as a potential form of child maltreatment and/or a criminal issue. A legal analysis utilizing both primary and secondary sources of state laws was conducted. Multiple reviewers were used to check statutes and compare findings. A coding scheme was created to determine the extent to which states utilized certain terms. Most states address parental substance use in some form as potential child maltreatment. There is great variability in how each state handles these instances, although there is some consensus that children who are exposed to an environment with manufacturing or distribution of drugs are worthy of regulation. Policy recommendations for training professionals on identification and reporting these situations as well as implications for families when reports are made are addressed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)
Equity depends on the definition: Examining the impact of segregation definitions on equity in school-based mental health.
Although government, academic, and legal agencies address the importance of racial equity, differing definitions of segregation may impact the analyses that provide the impetus for policy recommendations. This study examined how four definitions of segregation affected analyses of racial equity in access to school-based mental health in New York City (NYC), a city with some of the country’s most racially segregated school districts. The definitions included those provided by the Department of Education, New York University’s Metropolitan Center for Research, the U.S. Federal Court system, and the University of California Los Angeles Civil Rights Project. The researchers collected school data from online educational registers to examine a sample of 1,473 schools serving 889,637 students in the 2018–2019 academic year. Analyses suggested discrepancies based on the definitions used. Contrary to hypotheses, primarily non-White schools more frequently had mental health programs housed within the school than primarily White schools or nonsegregated schools. Across the four definitions, only New York University’s definition suggested that NYC prioritizes mental health care for youth at predominantly non-White schools when examining all types of school-based mental health programs. Interestingly, the Federal Court Definition, likely the most widely applied and directly used in decision making, reported the highest proportion of nonsegregated schools compared to the other definitions. These results show that definition does matter when examining how segregation impacts the distribution of mental health services in NYC and may matter in other critical decision-making processes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)
Alternative punishments: How laypeople and judges impose alternative noncarceral sanctions.
Legal theorists have argued that incarceration and alternative sanctions are incommensurable—that is, beyond some crime severity threshold, replacing incarceration with alternative sanctions can never yield a sentence that people will view as appropriate (Kahan, 1996). To test whether laypeople hold this view, we elicited lay judgments about appropriate sentences for four common types of federal crimes in two different conditions: One in which participants could impose only a term of imprisonment and another in which they could impose imprisonment along with alternative sanctions. Laypeople imposed significantly less imprisonment in the latter condition and significant quantities of alternative, noncarceral sanctions. Consistent with the view that imprisonment is commensurable with other sanctions, and particularly with restraint-based sanctions, laypeople substituted supervised release almost one-for-one for imprisonment. In addition, they increased imprisonment and supervised release at similar rates as crime severity increased. Next, using individual-level sentencing data from similar cases in the federal courts, we found that judges’ sentencing decisions showed similar relationships between crime severity and both imprisonment and supervised release. However, laypeople imposed dramatically larger fines and more hours of community service than did federal judges, and laypeople tied the use of these alternative sanctions more directly to crime severity. These findings suggest that federal judges do not view fines and community service as commensurable with incarceration. As a result, current criminal sentencing practices deviate from community views by placing excessive emphasis on incarceration and paying insufficient attention to alternative sanctions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)
Justice via chat? How litigants’ preferences and attorneys’ recommendations influence the choice to use online dispute resolution.
There is a significant need for empirical evidence concerning how litigants compare and choose between various modalities of online dispute resolution (ODR) and traditional in-person mediation for resolving legal disputes. To fill this need, we examined three potentially relevant psychological factors: (a) baseline attitudes toward in-person, video, and text-based mediation; (b) past communication style used by litigants; and (c) expert advice via attorney recommendations. We utilized a 2 × 3 × 3 design with communication style as a between-subjects variable, mediation modality as a within-subjects variable, and attorney recommendation randomized as either aligning with or differing from the participant’s baseline preference across 261 participants. We also identified the factors that litigants believe influence their decisions and examined how these factors shape their perceptions and ultimate choice. Participants read two cases and indicated their preferred mediation modality for each by ranking and rating the three modality options. They then learned which option their hypothetical attorney recommended and ranked and rated the options again. Using a mixed-model factorial analysis of variance, we found that (a) parties generally disfavored text-based mediation; (b) parties were swayed by their attorneys’ modality recommendation; and (c) the influence of attorney recommendation was tempered when the attorney suggested text-based mediation. The findings have implications for both legal psychology and policies surrounding ODR, including the current trend in state courts to offer text-based ODR. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)
Associations between the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion and youth violent offense charges and adjudications from 2008 to 2018.
We examined whether Medicaid expansion, a U.S. policy expanding Medicaid eligibility to more low-income adults, is associated with reductions in several types of youth violence, including robbery, assault, and sexual offending. Analyses were informed by two sources of data including juvenile charge and adjudication data from five states and crime report data from the national Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program. We limited analyses to cases involving children and youth ages 10–17. We applied a two-way fixed effects difference-in-differences model to compare trends in outcomes within states before and after Medicaid expansion was implemented in 2014 and between states that did and did not expand Medicaid. Analyses informed by the state-level juvenile justice data indicated that Medicaid expansion was associated with significant decreases in rates of first-time robbery, 22%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = [1, 38], and assault charges (19%, 95% CI = [0, 34]), and with first-time robbery (24%, 95% CI = [3, 41]) and assault adjudications (19%, 95% CI = [1, 34]). There was no policy association with sexual offending. Analyses informed by Uniform Crime Reporting data did not indicate an association between Medicaid expansion and any type of violent offense reports. We cautiously concluded that Medicaid expansion may be associated with reductions in youth robbery and assault, possibly as a result of an antipoverty pathway. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law - Vol 30, Iss 3