University of Chicago Law Review

Start Page



Part 3 of the Restatement of Children and the Law, 1 “Children in the Justice System,” reflects recent dramatic reform in juvenile law and practice.2 The reform recognizes that kids are different, requiring special attention to protecting due process when the justice system must make decisions in delinquency cases.3 The Restatement’s analyses use neuroscientific and psychosocial developmental research that has improved our under- standing of children’s and adolescents’ immature decision-making capacities and psychosocial vulnerability compared to adults.4 This developmental perspective has led to extensive reform of laws and practices that seek to better protect juveniles’ due process rights when in custody of the juvenile justice system. Analyzing established law and progressive trends, the Restatement offers guidance for the legal system and process, highlighting the need for continued changes in courts and legislatures not yet in step with prevailing trends in juvenile law.

This commentary examines two topics in Part 3 of the Restatement: Chapter 15, § 15.30 on “Adjudicative Competence in Delinquency Proceedings,” and Chapter 14, § 14-2 on “Interrogations and the Admissibility of Statements.” For both areas, the commentary examines the present state of law, policy, and practice trends identified by the Restatement, with special attention to needs for further reform. What evidence do we have that states are adopting, or are slow to adopt, important trends in juvenile law identified in the Restatement’s approach to juvenile adjudicative competence and pretrial custodial interrogations? Where is there still work to be done to promote changes in law highlighted by the Restatement, and what factors challenge that work?

Part I of the commentary examines recent reviews and social science reports of state laws, legal systems, and practice related to adjudicative competence in juvenile court. Part II offers cautionary comments on the potential of various procedural protections for juveniles in pretrial interrogations and their judicial re- view. Finally, Part III reflects generally on why it has been, and will continue to be, so challenging to create developmentally in- formed due process protections in these two areas of juvenile law.

Included in

Law Commons