Grade Related Changes in Young People's Reasoning About Plea Decisions

Children, like adults, have the opportunity to plead guilty when charged with a crime. However, the cognitive and emotional maturity of children in their decision-making processes is significantly different from that of adults. When cognitive development in children is not yet complete, there is a greater tendency to make plea decisions based on moral—rather than legal—systems, which could result in harmful consequences for juveniles. Nonetheless, children often receive adult-like treatment with respect to their rights and responsibilities within the criminal justice system. This study examines difference by grade level in juveniles’ legal reasoning abilities when making a plea decision by focusing on two critical components: the use of legal standards and the consideration of possible consequences. Contrary to the researchers’ hypothesis, the youngest children (age 10) were generally able to make plea decisions consistent with the strength of the evidence presented rather than on the moral guilt of the defendant they were assigned. This indicated a reliance on legal criteria in the decision-making process, arguably making young children competent in the plea decision process. However, younger children were more likely to take a guilt-based posture toward their plea decisions than older subjects were. Overall, the use of legal criteria increased and moral guilt decreased as the subjects’ grades increased.

“[A] majority of even the 10-year-old subjects used legal rather than moral criteria in making their plea decisions. The actions of these children clearly indicate their ability to distinguish a legal domain, with its own set of rules and principles, from the domain of morality.” p. 549