Sessions Information

  • May 2, 2018
    9:00 am - 10:30 am
    Session Type: AALS Programs
    Session Capacity: N/A
    Location: N/A
    Room: Dearborn 1
    Floor: Seventh Floor

    Are Children as Legally Culpable as Adults?

    Vanessa Hernandez, Suffolk University Law School

    In this article, I discuss why adolescent brain science should be considered before a child can be tried as an adult.

    Every state has a process for handling serious crimes committed by juveniles. These cases are typically indicated or transferred to an adult court where juveniles are tried as adults and face the possibility of an adult sentence.

    Adolescent brains are still developing until they reach early adulthood. Research shows that adolescents have significant neurological deficiencies and differences in cognitive brain function when compared to adults. Further, recent U.S. Supreme Court cases have considered this neuroscience in the context of sentencing adolescents. This research should be taken into account before cases are indicated or transferred and a child faces a potential adult sentence.

    Constitutional Prohibition of Interrogation of Children

    Samantha Buckingham, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles

    This paper will recommend prohibiting entirely the interrogation of children and use of their statements and confessions as evidence in prosecutions. 

    Historically, courts have struggled with reconciling a juvenile’s age and status as a child with the treatment of young offenders. The law is grappling with how protective it should be of children and how its treatment of children should differ from that of adults.

    In the context of interrogations, the constitutional protections afforded children under the law have not yet caught up with the research and precedent. In J.D.B. v. North Carolina, the Court held that age is a factor in a Fifth Amendment Miranda custody analysis.

    States have interpreted J.D.B.’s protections to apply beyond the specific context of custody. Legislation has also been evolving across the States affording children greater protections than adults, even requiring an attorney to be present to counsel children prior to interrogation.  

    Statements made by children are the most unreliable and least useful of all confessions. Children are inherently susceptible to pressure and the most prone of any group to false confessions. 

     Prohibiting interrogation of children altogether is the most efficient and fair way to ensure the system does not run afoul of violating the constitutional rights of children, elicit unreliable evidence, overpower vulnerable children in a manner that undermines their faith in the police and the legal system, and violate equal protection for all children who possess a Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.

Session Speakers
LMU Loyola Law School, Los Angeles
Works-in-Progress Presenter

Suffolk University Law School
Works-in-Progress Presenter

Session Fees

Fees information is not available at this time.