Examining legal issues: juvenile offenders in criminal court and adult prison.

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1995 permits children 13 and older who commit violent crimes with a firearm on federal property to be prosecuted as adults. The bill's main sponsor, Rep. Bill McCollum (R-Fla.) has said that serious juvenile offenders "should be thrown in jail, the key should be thrown away and there should be very little or no effort to rehabilitate them." What are the consequences of such attitudes toward juvenile offenders? The increased frequency with which serious or chronic juvenile offenders are tried in criminal court and then incarcerated in adult correctional facilities raises three important questions: To what extent does a trial in criminal court and/or incarceration in adult prisons promote or retard community protection, juvenile offenders' accountability and the development of competencies in juvenile offenders?

National Trends in Juvenile Justice

"Never in our history have we seen this phenomenon of youth violence as random and as inexplicable," observes U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno. Recent studies show that juvenile crime has risen in proportion to the overall crime rate since the mid-1980s. Juveniles arrested for violent index crimes (murder, non-negligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, theft and arson) increased 60 percent since 1987 (as compared with a 24 percent increase for adults), and in 1996, 2,900 juveniles were arrested for murder or non-negligent manslaughter, a 50 percent increase since 1987. The juvenile homicide rate has increased (20 percent), as has the robbery rate (50 percent, vs. 13 percent for adults). Drug arrests of juveniles have increased 120 percent since 1992.

The greatest increase in juvenile crime has been among the youngest offenders. Crime committed by juveniles under age 15 increased 94 percent between 1980 and 1995. According to the American Psychological Association, the increase in the teen population between now and 2010 may bring about further increases in violent crime.

There has, however, been some good news recently: Between 1994 and 1996, there was a 9 percent decrease in the number of juveniles arrested for violent index crimes, a 7 percent decrease in juveniles arrested for burglary, and a 31 percent decrease in juvenile homicide arrests. Moreover, juvenile rape arrests are at their lowest level since 1977, and robbery arrests, while a bit higher than the low level of 1984, are actually 21 percent below the 1980 level.

McCollum's statement about the need to lock up juveniles in adult prisons and throw away the key echoes public sentiment, which for some time now has been demanding a "get tough" approach to the perceived increase in juvenile crime. There is growing consensus that: 1) juvenile offenders are responsible for their actions and should be punished; 2) many juvenile offenders are beyond rehabilitation; 3) rehabilitation does not work; 4) greater deterrence is needed; and 5) violent juveniles must remain incarcerated into adulthood. The juvenile codes of at least half the states now emphasize punishment rather than rehabilitation.

State Transfer Laws

Real or perceived increases in juvenile crime have triggered statutory changes designed to satisfy societal concerns, increase the efficiency and impact of the juvenile justice system, and curb further growth in juvenile crime rates. Along with the federal government, states have responded to the public's outrage at rising juvenile crime by revising their transfer statutes, which provide for transfer of juveniles from juvenile court to adult criminal court. Changes in state transfer laws have increased the pool of eligible juveniles by lowering the age requirement and expanding the list of transferrable crimes, or by eliminating some factors that judges must consider before transferring. Virtually all states have set the minimum transfer age at 14 or younger, and many states now require transfer for juveniles who commit violent felonies such as murder, rape or armed robbery. Several states, such as Alaska, Nebraska, New Mexico and Wyoming, now allow children of any age to be transferred for most crimes.

Legal Consequences of Criminal Court Adjudication 

Transfer cases account for only about 2 percent of the total number of formally processed delinquency cases, but most juvenile cases are not eligible for transfer to criminal court. Still, a significant number of eligible cases are transferred, and the number is steadily increasing as a result of the changes in state laws. Between 1985 and 1994, judicial transfers increased 71 percent, although delinquency cases increased just 41 percent. According to researcher James C. Howell, former director of the Research and Program Division at the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), the increase in transferred cases is due to a number of factors in addition to the changes in state laws: increased numbers of violent offenders, greater willingness of juvenile court judges to transfer cases, more juvenile offenders who are less amenable to treatment, and fewer treatment options available in the juvenile system.

As the U.S. Supreme Court has found (Kent vs. United States, 1966), transfer can have "tremendous consequences for the juvenile," including lengthy incarceration and abuse in the adult prison and execution for capital offenses. As the New Jersey Supreme Court noted, "Waiver to the adult court is the single most serious act the juvenile court can perform ... because once waiver of jurisdiction occurs, the child loses all protective and rehabilitative possibilities available." In some states, however, the criminal court trying a juvenile can impose either an adult or a juvenile sentence.

A criminal court felony conviction generally results in the loss of several rights and privileges and the possibility of adult sanctions. Legal consequences of a criminal court felony conviction include:

* Lose right to vote;

* Lose right to serve in military;

* Lose right to own a firearm;

* Conviction is public record;

* Conviction must be reported on employment applications;

* Generally subject to criminal court jurisdiction for all subsequent offenses committed as a juvenile;

* Conviction considered in sentencing for future criminal convictions and sentencing under "three-strikes" laws;

* May receive adult sentence;

* May be incarcerated in adult prison; and

* Possibility of receiving death penalty for capital offenses if age 16 or older at the time of the offense.

Unfortunately, these consequences may actually increase recidivism because they limit the extent to which the offender can become successfully reintegrated into community life and because they limit the offender's ability to obtain employment and other life opportunities.

Use of Juvenile Records in Criminal Court

The current trend is to make juvenile court records more open to the public and more available for use by criminal courts and prosecutors. When criminal courts consider the juvenile record, it often results in longer sentences and a greater likelihood of incarceration. All states authorize (by statute, court rules, or case law) the criminal court to consider the defendant's juvenile record in sentencing, with 24 states mandating such consideration. Juvenile offenses are considered under the three-strikes laws of California, Louisiana and Texas, for example, and often are used to enhance sentences or to make the defendant ineligible for probation. Adult sentences can be increased by adding the unserved portion of the juvenile sentence onto the adult sentence.

All of this is despite the fact that a juvenile court adjudication is not a criminal conviction and may lack the same reliability as a criminal court adjudication for a variety of reasons. There generally is not a trial by jury; juvenile courts often follow evidentiary and procedural rules less rigorously and, in practice, the system is less adversarial and judges may tend to adjudicate juveniles as delinquent without sufficient evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Also, pleading guilty to a serious offense in juvenile court does not affect sentencing as it would in an adult court. Moreover, laws directing consideration of the juvenile record are inconsistent with the practice in most states of sealing or expunging juvenile records after a certain time period or if certain preconditions are met (particularly for nonviolent offenders). Only two states reverse a sealing order upon an adult conviction and, when juvenile records are made available, their quality and completeness often are poor.

Additionally, the justice system often cannot get access to information about the juvenile from other agencies. Such information frequently is critical for making informed dispositional, correctional and probation decisions. Legal and social histories on a juvenile often are maintained by police, courts, attorney, state agencies, schools, and social welfare, medical, and mental health service providers. Yet, many times this information is unavailable to the juvenile or criminal courts and correctional systems due to intra-agency, interagency and systems barriers.

Given the increasing trend toward requiring consideration of juvenile records in criminal court sentencing, and the problems reported in the literature about the unavailability or inadequacy of juvenile court records, research is needed to examine how records and information move or fail to move between systems (e.g., juvenile detention, mental health, schools) and from juvenile court to the adult court, whether there has been a transfer of existing records management technology from the juvenile to adult system, and why prosecutors often fail to use available records. Such research would provide the data needed to develop proposals for improving policy and practice in recordkeeping, sharing and management.

Deterrence Effects of Transfer Laws

Despite some anecdotal evidence that transfer laws deter crime, two well-designed studies found that automatic transfer laws have no deterrent effect on juvenile crime in the relative short term (up to eight years after such laws were enacted). An Idaho study involved a time-series analysis for five years after the 1981 Idaho automatic transfer statute was passed, and found a 13 percent increase in arrest rates for violent juvenile crime. A similar time-series analysis found that the New York state law automatically sending violent juvenile offenders to adult court had no deterrent effect on the six-year period after the law was passed, even though the law was widely used and the state had made significant efforts through news media to inform juveniles of the new law.

The practice of transferring juvenile offenders to criminal court does not appear to deter juvenile crime. It is possible, however, that transfer laws may have a deterrent effect over the longer term if juveniles are deterred by hearing about substantial numbers of juveniles tried and sentenced as adults. Research is needed to examine the long-term deterrent effects of transfer laws and to examine whether such laws produce small, long-term changes in offending rates that would not have been detectable in the above studies. Additionally, research should examine whether inadequate implementation of transfer laws or an insufficient threat of serious punishment explains their apparent failure to deter crime.

Recidivism Rates in Juvenile Vs. Criminal Court

A key purpose of transfer laws is to enhance community protection against serious and violent juvenile offenders, but community protection actually may be reduced over the long term by transferring juveniles to criminal court. Three recent large-scale studies indicated that juveniles tried in criminal court have greater recidivism rates after release than juveniles tried in juvenile court.

In Minnesota, a 1996 study found higher recidivism rates for transferred juveniles as compared to nontransferred juveniles, and an older study found that serious juvenile offenders recidivated 150 percent more often when handled in the criminal justice system as compared to the juvenile justice system. Controlling for prior record and offense severity, researcher Jeffrey Fagan of Columbia University examined the eight-year recidivism rate of 800 15- and 16-year old juvenile offenders charged with robbery or burglary, comparing those charged in juvenile court in New Jersey with matched offenders charged in criminal court under New York's automatic transfer law. (Most of the juvenile arrests in New York were for robbery or burglary.) Robbery offenders sentenced in criminal court reoffended faster and at higher rates than those tried in juvenile court (90.5 percent vs. 73 percent reoffending rate for incarcerated youths; 81.2 percent vs. 64.4 percent for those who received probation), but there was no difference in recidivism for burglary offenders.

Controlling for seven variables (race, gender, age, most serious prior offense, number of referrals to juvenile court, number of charges and most serious charge), researchers Donna Bishop, Charles Frazier, Lonn Lanza-Kaduce and Lawrence Winner compared the one-year recidivism rate of 2,738 juvenile offenders transferred to criminal court in Florida with a matched sample of nontransferred juveniles. Recidivism rates and time to reoffending were higher for the transferred juveniles across seven offense types (ranging from violent felonies to minor misdemeanors). Following the same offenders six years after their initial study, the researchers again found higher recidivism rates for those transferred to criminal court for all offenders except property felons, for whom an interesting pattern emerged. Property offenders transferred to criminal court actually were somewhat less likely to reoffend than those tried in juvenile court, although those transferred who did reoffend did so sooner and more often that those tried in juvenile court.

Clearly, transfer to criminal court results in higher recidivism rates for most types of offenders. Existing research studies cannot exclude the real possibility that the recidivism rates for transferred youths are higher because these youths were less amenable to treatment in the first place. Future research also should examine the role of amenability to treatment in transfer decisions and recidivism. Such research will inform transfer policy and practice regarding the types of offenders for whom transfer to criminal court is most likely to reduce recidivism.

The generally higher recidivism rates in criminal court are perhaps because the rehabilitation efforts of the juvenile justice system are more effective as a result of the emphasis on individualized and nonpunitive treatment regimes;(2) perhaps because punishment in the adult system makes juvenile offenders feel that they have been treated unjustly. The greater degree of retributive punishment inherent in criminal court adjudication and adult incarceration may produce a variety of counterdeterrent effects, possibly including: stigmatization, humiliations, loss of self-respect, attenuation of guilt or shame, hardening of the delinquent self-concept, weakened ties to families, peers and community, and diminished job and educational prospects. As Bazemore and Michael Umbreit say, "Ironically, punishment may encourage lawbreakers to focus on themselves rather than on their victims and the community as they learn to 'take the punishment' without taking responsibility for their misbehavior."

Formal justice system processing may increase the likelihood of having a delinquent self-concept and may produce higher recidivism rates, particularly if the offender feels he or she has been treated unjustly. Winner, Lanza-Kaduce, Bishop and Frazier suggest that a possible reason for the higher recidivism rates among transferred juveniles is that they attribute greater injustice to criminal court processing, which causes them to react defiantly through reoffending. Similarly, researcher T.R. Tyler found that adults who believed they had been treated unfairly by courts or police were less compliant with the law than those who felt they had been fairly treated. Juveniles with negative perceptions of the fairness of being adjudicated in criminal court and/or incarcerated in adult prisons may be more likely to adopt a "criminal" self-concept, an important variable in determining outcomes. A study of the skill and capacity deficits, external pressures or disadvantages, and psychological adjustment of 162 delinquent boys found that self-concept was the factor that correlated most strongly with recidivism.

For property offenders, however, criminal court adjudications appear to have no effect on their recidivism; they may reduce it slightly. Adult criminological research shows that property offenders have higher recidivism rates than those who commit offenses against persons, who often act impulsively during interpersonal conflict and may not necessarily plan to commit violent crimes. Perhaps criminal court adjudication teaches property offenders a lesson about the consequences of their criminal conduct, whereas it has not deterrent effects for violent offenders because criminal conduct was likely unplanned or unintentional, and thus, criminal court adjudication serves only to label and stigmatize them. Given these findings, along with the fact that 60 percent of judicially transferred cases involve property offenses, future research should evaluate the possible differential effects of transfer on offending patterns.

Conviction and Sentencing in Juvenile Vs. Criminal Court

Criminal court processing typically takes longer than juvenile court adjudication, with many criminal court cases involving juveniles on pending or unresolved status. However, recent delays in juvenile court processing have brought juvenile and criminal court processing times closer together. It is clear, however, that there is wide variation between and within states in transfer rates, conviction rates, incarceration rates and sentence lengths, and research on adjudication outcomes is mixed.

Some studies show that transferred juveniles are convicted more frequently in juvenile court than criminal court, but others show that the criminal court conviction rate is comparable to or higher than the juvenile court rate. Generally, serious violent juvenile offenders transferred via judicial transfer have the highest conviction rates.

However, only one study examined the actual lengths of prison time served by juveniles sentenced in criminal court. A 1996 study examined 946 cases transferred in Texas between 1981 and 1993. Seventy-six percent of the cases involved violent offenses (about half of which were homicide cases), and about 75 percent of the juveniles were 16 or older. At least 87 percent of juveniles received longer sentences in criminal court than they would have received in juvenile court; 35 percent received sentences of 20 years or more. However, for all offenses except rape, the average prison time actually served was only three and a half years (an average of about 27 percent of the sentence imposed), shorter than the possible sentence length in a juvenile facility. These findings highlight the possible discrepancy between sentences imposed by criminal courts and the actual time served.

Thus, the research shows that juveniles convicted in criminal court, particularly serious and violent offenders, are more likely to be incarcerated and receive longer sentences than juveniles retained in the juvenile system. But apparently they may serve only a fraction of the sentences imposed, perhaps less time than they would have served in a juvenile facility. Moreover, there is considerable jurisdictional variation in incarceration rates and sentence lengths. Clearly, more research is needed on the comparability of conviction rates and sentences in juvenile vs. criminal courts.

Discussion

What are the consequences of the trend nationwide to treat juvenile offenders as McCollum suggested: to throw them in adult prisons, throw away the key and dispense with the juvenile justice system's rehabilitative ideals? As the key research findings indicate, criminal court adjudication and incarceration in adult prisons appear to offer few penological advantages and many disadvantages. The research suggests that criminal prosecution and/or imprisonment retards rather than enhances community protection and diminishes rather than enhances juvenile offenders' accountability and their development of competencies.

While more research clearly is required to make definitive or even strong policy statements, extant research appears to indicate that criminal court prosecution does not deter juvenile crime in the first place; that criminal court adjudication takes longer; that, while juveniles are more likely to receive longer and more serious sentences in criminal court, they actually may end up serving less time than they would in a juvenile facility; and that criminal court adjudication generally produces higher recidivism rates for most offenders. As the U.S. Department of Justice concluded in 1995, "[Transfer] does not appreciably increase the certainty to severity of sanctions. While transfer may increase the length of confinement for a minority of the most serious offenders, the majority of transferred juveniles receive sentences that are comparable to sanctions already available in the juvenile justice system. More important, there is no evidence that young offenders handled in criminal court are less likely to recidivate than those remaining in juvenile court." And once juveniles are incarcerated in adult prisons, they typically receive far fewer age-appropriate rehabilitative, medical, mental health and educational services than they would in a juvenile facility and are at far greater risk for physical abuse, sexual abuse and suicide.

Thus, the first important policy goal flowing from the research findings is to minimize the number of juvenile cases transferred to criminal court, particularly those cases involving first-time offenders charged with crimes against persons. Perhaps one way to achieve this goal is to empower juvenile courts to impose adult sentences with authority to supervise rehabilitation or probation continuing into adulthood. Expanded sentencing authority for the juvenile courts requires expanding the juvenile courts' resources, but would reduce the number of transfers solely to ensure continued incarceration. Full due process protections, including the right of trial by jury, are necessary when there is the possibility of an adult sentence being imposed.

Prosecutors often file transfer petitions for older adolescents to ensure confinement for a period in excess of the maximum sentence available in juvenile courts. But, through new "blended jurisdiction" statutes, states increasingly are allowing juvenile courts to impose adult sentences and/or to extend their sentencing jurisdictions over certain juveniles past the age of majority. New Mexico's statutory scheme essentially makes the "transfer" issue a sentencing question. The prosecutor decides whether to petition before trial for adult sentencing, and if such a petition is filed, the juvenile has the right to a jury trial in juvenile court. If the juvenile is found guilty in juvenile court, the judge then decides whether to sentence him or her as an adult or a juvenile (subject to extended jurisdiction until age 21). New Mexico's approach, according to Elizabeth E. Clarke "offers the advantage of determining whether to transfer at a point in the proceedings when the decision-maker has access to all relevant background information on the offense and on the offender." Particularly promising blended sentencing approaches are those allowing the adult sentence to be suspended provided the juvenile does not violate the terms of the juvenile sentence. This gives the juvenile offender a "last chance" at rehabilitation within the juvenile system while also enhancing community protection.

Some may argue that issues regarding juvenile court jurisdiction and transfer are irrelevant if the juvenile court can sentence as the adult court would, and that extended jurisdiction will effectively destroy the juvenile court's mission. However, juvenile court judges are far more experienced in juvenile justice, have greater understandings of juveniles' unique developmental and mental health needs and deficits, are more familiar with the various community-based treatment options available for juveniles; and, given the juvenile court's historically rehabilitative ideal, are more likely to espouse a rehabilitative (or rehabilitative/punitive) philosophy of juvenile justice.

The penological justification for retaining juvenile court jurisdiction, even if an adult sentence is to be imposed, is the mounting evidence that something about criminal court processing, per se, may put juveniles at greater risk for reoffending. However, we do not know whether that "something" is the juvenile justice system's superior rehabilitation efforts, a social labeling or stigmatizing effect of being tried in criminal court, and/or that being tried and incarcerated in the adult system makes juvenile offenders feel they have been treated unjustly. The answers to these and related questions await substantial future research.

The second important policy goal flowing from research findings is that prison incarceration should be reserved only for a small number of very chronic or violent offenders, with juvenile- and community-based dispositions used for all other offenders. The graduated sanctions approach in the OJJDP's comprehensive strategy for serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders involves a continuum of sanctions and treatment alternatives (each including intensive supervision) as functions of offending history and offense seriousness, with long-term incarceration a last resort. The graduated sanctions approach has many proven benefits: reduced costs, increased accountability by the juvenile and the community, and enhanced responsiveness to the juvenile's treatment needs.

A graduated community-based sanctions approach can, according to Bazemore and Umbreit, foster "restorative justice" by providing for "active involvement of victims, the community, and offenders in a process focused on denunciation of the offense, offender acceptance of responsibility (accountability), and reparation, followed by conflict resolution resulting from the criminal act and offender reintegration." Community-based programs can protect the community by providing close supervision and monitoring and are more effective than incarceration in reducing recidivism, even for serious and violent juvenile offenders. Options include group homes, house arrest, detention, restitution programs, day treatment or training programs, intensive supervision, or some combination thereof. Juveniles can be punished and taught the consequences of their actions along with the coping, life and job skills needed to function appropriately in the community.

Even for violent offenders, some community-based programs have proved effective, particularly those that are comprehensive and long-term. In particular, multisystemic treatment - a very intensive treatment focusing on the juvenile's family, peer and school networks - appears to be one of the very few relatively successful treatments for chronic and serious juvenile offenders.

Multisystemic treatment is costly and resource-intensive, but far less costly than incarceration, which costs about $30,000 per year, per juvenile. Perhaps the best evidence for the effectiveness of community-based treatment comes from a recent study examining recidivism among more than 2,000 juvenile offenders. The study found that court-supervised community treatment was the most effective disposition for preventing recidivism. Longer terms of community treatment were more effective than shorter terms, while longer terms of detention only resulted in higher recidivism rates.

Needed Research

Much of the research throughout the 1980s and early 1990s focused on documenting the rapid legislative changes in the states, determining basic processing statistics (e.g., how many juveniles are transferred and convicted), and identifying predictors of the transfer decision (e.g., demographics, case characteristics). This first stage of research on juvenile justice reform has provided valuable information on the nature of legislative and programmatic change. However, the legislative reform preceded any systematic inquiry into the impact of such reform on the psychological and behavioral effects of trying juvenile offenders in criminal court and/or incarcerating them in adult facilities. As noted by Howell, "It is surprising how little information is available on criminal justice system handling of juvenile offenders ... Transferred juveniles create new problems for the adult correctional system, including development of treatment and reintegrative services, and protection from predatory inmates."

As the review of current research demonstrates, much more research is needed on:

* The long-term deterrent effects of transfer laws and the extent to which such laws are effectively implemented;

* The comparability of conviction rates, sentences imposed, and actual time served for juveniles in juvenile court vs. criminal court;

* The possible differential effects of transfer on the recidivism rates of juveniles convicted of person offenses vs. juveniles convicted of property offenses;

* Programming and services available for juveniles in adult correctional facilities; and

* How differences between the adult and juvenile correctional facilities impact juveniles' psychological and behavioral adjustment inside the facility and upon their release.

Very little is known about what actually happens to juveniles in the adult criminal justice system. There is some research on the effects of transfer on recidivism. However, there is virtually no research on the other psychological and behavioral effects of criminal court prosecution and/or incarceration in adult correctional facilities. Such research is critical for informing policy and practices concerning whether juveniles should be incarcerated in adult facilities and, if so, how those facilities can best serve the juveniles under their care and respond to the unique management problems they pose.

ENDNOTES

1. Juveniles tried as adults lose the civil rights listed except in states providing that if the criminal court imposes a juvenile disposition, the finding of guilt is not a criminal conviction but is considered an adjudication of delinquency and that none of the "civil disabilities ordinarily resulting from a conviction" operate. See e.g., Florida Statutes Annotated, Section 985.233(4)(b) (1997).

2. In comparing the juvenile and criminal courts and correctional systems, Judge Arthur (1998, p. 52) notes that "The juvenile court's rehabilitative model looks to the future: It focuses not just on what the offender did but on why he did it, who and what influenced him, and what can be done to improve these influences in the future. The juvenile court's individualized, rehabilitative system looks at each offender and his danger in the future. The adult punitive system looks at each plea-bargained offense with the same punishment for every person who commits the offense, regardless of whether one of them may commit a new crime as soon as he's released."

REFERENCES

Bazemore, Gordon and Michael Umbreit. 1995. Rethinking the sanctioning function in juvenile court: Retributive or restorative responses to youth crime. Crime and Delinquency, 41(3):296-316.

Bishop, Donna M., Charles E. Frazier, Lonn Lanza-Kaduce and Lawrence Winner. 1996. The transfer of juveniles to criminal court: Does it make a difference? Crime and Delinquency, 42:171-191.

Clarke, Elizabeth E. 1996. A case for reinventing juvenile transfer. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 47(1):3-21.

Fagan, Jeffrey. 1996. The comparative advantage of juvenile vs. criminal court sanctions on recidivism among adolescent felony offenders. Law and Policy, 18 (1 and 2):77-113.

Howell, James C. 1996. Juvenile transfers to the criminal justice system: State of the art. Law and Policy, 18(1 and 2):17-60.

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Juvenile offenders and victims: A focus on violence. Washington, D.C.

Winner, Lawrence, Lonn Lanza-Kaduce, Donna M. Bishop and Charles E. Frazier. 1997. The transfer of juveniles to criminal court: Reexamining recidivism over the long term. Crime and Delinquency, 43(4):548-563.

Richard E. Redding, J.D., Ph.D., is an assistant professor of law, general faculty, and of psychology, at the Institute of Law, Psychiatry and Public Policy at the University of Virginia School of Law.