The role of developmental science in informing legal aspects of youth blameworthiness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence from developmental sciences points to the role of psychological and cognitive factors in youth crime. Deficits in decision-making are hallmarks of adolescence suggesting that young individuals are less blameworthy than adults. Politicians in both the United States and Canada, however, are currently seeking to enact legislation stressing a more punitive approach to juvenile crime. Such harsh measures, moreover, may hinder the psychological health of adolescents and have been argued to be largely ineffective in reducing criminal recidivism. The present thesis comprises two manuscripts. One presents a conceptual framework in which we explore the blameworthiness and rehabilitation of youth. The second manuscript consists of results from a pilot survey in which we have assessed opinions of legal and clinical experts regarding the influence of developmental factors on legal desiderata concerning juvenile delinquents. Our findings suggest that while the legal community is moderately sensitive to developmental issues associated with youth culpability, the gap between developmental science and the legal system persists. We suggest that a closer interaction between clinical and legal experts is crucial to create an evidence-based developmental law.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".