Commentary: Children's minds and adult statutes.

In “Competency to Stand Trial in Preadjudicated and Petitioned Juvenile Defendants,” Baerger et al. report the results of their investigation of competency to stand trial of juveniles charged with various offenses. The findings support the expected positive correlations between age and competency and cognitive ability and competency. The importance of the paper, however, lies in its contribution to the sparsely investigated area of juvenile competency. As the authors conclude, their finding that the significant frequency of cognitive impairment in juvenile offenders, particularly in those involved in sexual offenses, suggests that criminal justice involvement itself may suffice as a reason to evaluate juveniles. The concept of juvenile competency to stand trial is a challenging concept. Although the legal standard for competency is Dusky, the question when applied to children or adolescents takes on dimensions beyond those encountered in dealing with adults. What is the legal assumption underlying competency in children? Why is the issue raised, particularly when the case remains in juvenile court? What are the difficulties in assessing child competency? And finally, what are the competing interests in determining the competency of juveniles? The Peculiar Assumption of Competency