Competency to Stand Trial (CST) is a legal concept that until recently was only relevant in criminal courts. CST is generally defined as a defendant's ability to consult with his or her attorney and understand the court proceedings, including current charges. In Arizona, before being found delinquent, juveniles who commit crimes must be found competent to stand trial. If the juvenile court is based on the goal of rehabilitation and the perception of youth as less responsible, why is it necessary to adopt standards that ensure a defendant is competent to stand trial? In fact, one might argue that the very construct of competency to stand trial does not make sense in a court where youth are adjudicated rather than convicted and are not even granted all the constitutional rights given to adults. By ensuring youth are competent to stand trial, the court may be realigning the juvenile court to be more similar to the criminal court, which may introduce greater punitiveness to juvenile court dispositions.
This study examines how court actors (judicial officers, defense attorneys, and prosecutors) understand and construct youths' competency to stand trial in Maricopa County (Phoenix) juvenile courts, and the impact this early decision has on case processing. Specifically, my research questions are: 1) What are the predictors of the competency decision? 2) How do court officials make the decision to request a competency evaluation for youth? What are the characteristics of the youth and the offense that court officials utilize to make the request? 3) How are court actors socialized within the court community to distinguish between competent and incompetent youth? What are the common characteristics of youth court actors utilize to request competency evaluations and in the judicial officers' case, the characteristics utilized to make a final competency decision? 4) What are the consequences of the competency decision? Do youth differ in their dispositions based on the competency distinction? The first and fourth research questions are answered through the quantitative analysis of juvenile offense and offender data (e.g. offense, prior record, ethnicity, sex, family structure, socioeconomic status, gang membership, and school achievement, age, IQ, mental illness diagnosis, competency outcome, and disposition) available through the statewide Juvenile Online Tracking System. The second and third research questions are answered through observing competency hearings and interviewing court officials.
This project contributes to the socio-legal knowledge of courtroom decision-making in three ways. First, since this literature is predominantly focused on the sentencing decision, as opposed to entry-point decisions, this project will enhance our understanding of how the pool of court cases is established and therefore, how biases and inequities may enter the juvenile justice process. Second, much of the juvenile court decision-making literature relies only on quantitative research, which is poorly suited for understanding the interaction of contextual and individual-level variables in the decision-making process. In contrast, this project uses mixed methods: statistical models to predict competency decision-making and case dispositions (research questions 1 and 4), and observations of competency hearings and interviews with court officials to reach a deeper understanding of how court actors construct competency as well as how they use this information in deciding on juveniles' cases (research questions 2 and 3). Third, it will be the first empirical study to examine how court actors evaluate competency and use this evaluation in their deliberations about youths' cases.
In addition to contributing to our understanding of courtroom decision-making, this study promises to have a broader, practical impact. Since the competency legislation is relatively new (enacted in 2001) in Arizona, the results of this study will be utilized to directly impact policy decisions at the juvenile court level. This project will assist juvenile courts in understanding both the indirect (e.g. potential disparities between those found competent and those found incompetent) and direct (e.g. county, state, and federal expenditures, youth dispositions) effects of the competency decision for youth and administration. In particular, the study will help juvenile courts reduce racial/ethnic, class and gender inequities in case processing.
