For Your Final Project, Review A Juvenile ✓ Solved

For your Final Project, you will review one of the juvenile

For your Final Project, you will review one of the juvenile mass school shooter cases listed below. Each of these juvenile mass school shooters was “bound over” to adult court, tried, and sentenced as adults. The cases to choose from include Kip Kinkel, Charles Andrew Williams, Barry Loukaitis, Michael Carneal, Luke Woodham, and Thomas “T.J.” Lane.

In your paper, you will:

• Review/research current state laws pertaining to juveniles “bound over” to adult court.
• Provide an analysis of your state laws regarding juveniles sentenced as adults. If you are an international student, you may use your local or regional laws.
• Evaluate risk factors that may have contributed to the shooter's actions, including developmental risk factors.
• Recommend forensic risk assessment instruments appropriate for evaluating risk specific to this case.
• Evaluate your own personal biases that may lead to weaknesses in effectively communicating the results of the forensic assessment where the defendant is a juvenile given a life sentence.
• Explain ethical concerns that may impact your work on this case, citing relevant APA Ethical Guidelines, Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology, and/or Multicultural Competence Guidelines from the Week 2 Learning Resources.

The Final Project must include a minimum of five academic references (in addition to any course readings that you may wish to reference).

Non-professional, user-created websites such as Wikipedia will not be accepted as scholarly references.

Paper For Above Instructions

Understanding Juvenile Mass School Shooters and Legal Context

The phenomenon of juvenile mass shootings in schools has elicited significant societal concern and complex legal considerations. This paper aims to provide a comprehensive review of one case of juvenile mass shooting, focusing on the laws governing the treatment of juveniles tried as adults, the risk factors contributing to such violent behaviors, an analysis of personal biases that may affect interpretations of the events, and ethical concerns surrounding forensic psychology in these sensitive circumstances. For illustrative purposes, this paper will analyze the case of Kip Kinkel, a 15-year-old who committed a school shooting in Oregon in 1998.

Current State Laws Regarding Juveniles Bound Over to Adult Court

In the U.S., laws regarding the trial of juveniles as adults vary significantly by state. In Oregon, where Kip Kinkel's case unfolded, the law allows for juveniles to be transferred to adult court under certain circumstances. According to Oregon law, a juvenile can be “bound over” to adult court if they are charged with certain offenses, such as murder or aggravated murder, and if the juvenile is 15 or older at the time of the offense. This reflects a legal perception that some minors can be charged with crimes that warrant more severe penalties, consistent with adult offenders.

The guidelines for transferring a juvenile to adult court typically evaluate the seriousness of the offense, the juvenile's age, prior delinquency history, and any psychological evaluations that may suggest the individual poses a continuing threat to society (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2021). Kinkel was tried as an adult and received a combined sentence of 111 years in prison, clearly illustrating how juvenile offenders can face adult penalties depending on the nature of their crimes.

Risk Factors Contributing to the Shooter's Actions

Understanding the risk factors associated with juvenile mass shootings is critical in evaluating individual cases. Several developmental risk factors contributed to Kip Kinkel's actions. Research indicates that exposure to violence, familial instability, and psychiatric issues are significant contributors to aggressive outcomes in youth (Loeber et al., 2003).

Kinkel exhibited troubling behavior leading up to the shooting, including a history of disciplinary actions at school and reported threats toward peers. Furthermore, he was reportedly diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and was prescribed medication that he had not consistently taken. This aligns with findings that suggest untreated mental health issues can escalate aggressive behaviors (Dubow et al., 2019).

Forensic Risk Assessment Instruments

In assessing risk in juvenile offenders, a variety of forensic risk assessment tools are available. For Kip Kinkel's case, instruments such as the HCR-20 (Historical, Clinical, Risk Management-20) may be suitable as they assess risk based on historical information, clinical issues, and risk management considerations (Douglas et al., 2014). Additionally, the SAVRY (Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth) could provide insights into the unique risk factors that pertain specifically to juveniles, notably developmental needs and psychosocial influences (Borum et al., 2006).

Personal Biases in Communicating Forensic Assessments

As a forensic psychologist, it is essential to recognize personal biases that might affect the communication of assessment results. The case of Kip Kinkel elicits strong emotional responses due to the tragic outcomes and the age of the perpetrator. Biases may stem from societal views on juvenile justice and the harshness of adult sentencing for minors. It is imperative to approach these assessments with objectivity and an awareness of potential prejudices against individuals who commit violent acts (Sullivan et al., 2020).

Acknowledging the tendency to dehumanize juvenile offenders can help mitigate bias in reporting and assessments. As forensic psychologists, it is crucial to advocate for a balanced narrative that considers both accountability for criminal actions and the potential for rehabilitation in youth offenders. Failure to confront these biases may result in less effective treatment and communication of findings to the judicial system.

Ethical Concerns in Forensic Psychology

Ethical considerations are a cornerstone of forensic psychology, particularly when working with juvenile offenders. According to the APA Ethical Guidelines (2017), professionals must respect the dignity and welfare of people, ensuring that assessments are conducted truthfully and fairly. In cases involving juveniles, there are additional layers of ethical considerations surrounding confidentiality, parental involvement, and the potential impacts of long-term sentencing on development (American Psychological Association, 2017).

Moreover, the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology emphasize the importance of cultural competence and awareness of the broader social context when conducting assessments (APA, 2013). In Kip Kinkel's case, it is essential to consider the societal factors influencing his upbringing, including familial relationships and community dynamics.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the tragic events surrounding juvenile mass shootings necessitate a multifaceted examination of legal, psychological, and ethical dimensions. By applying state laws concerning juveniles tried as adults, identifying contributing risk factors, recognizing personal biases, and adhering to ethical guidelines, forensic psychologists can strive for a comprehensive understanding of such complex cases. As knowledge grows in this area, it is imperative to balance legal consequences with opportunities for rehabilitation and improved outcomes for juvenile offenders.

References

• American Psychological Association. (2013). Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology.
• American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct.
• Borum, R., Bartel, P., & Forth, A. (2006). Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY).
• Douglas, K. S., Hart, S. D., Webster, C. D., & Belfrage, H. (2014). HCR-20 V3: Assessing Risk for Violence.
• Dubow, E. F., Boxer, P., & Huesmann, L. R. (2019). Long-term effects of early exposure to violence on the development of aggression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 47(5), 789-801.
• Loeber, R., & Hay, D. (2003). Key problem domains of juvenile delinquency and the effects of prevention programs. In M. D. K. (Ed.), Prevention of Youth Violence (pp. 38-57).
• Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2021). Juveniles in Adult Courts.
• Sullivan, C. J., & Izzo, P. (2020). The impact of biases in child and adolescent mental health professionals on assessments. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 61(6), 721-730.