Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Le role des facteurs developpementaux dans la determination de la responsabilite morale chez les jeunes: une etude pilote evaluant les opinions d'experts legaux et cliniques

Demacheva, Irina, Aubert Bonn, Noémie, Lucero, Sébastien, Ladouceur, Martin, Raz, Amir, Mzouji, Rabia·2013·Criminologie
DOI 10.7202/1013725ar
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Récemment, la recherche sur le développement cognitif fait part d’une grande source d’information concernant la responsabilité morale attribuable aux délinquants juvéniles. Cependant, l’intégration de ces connaissances dans le milieu légal demeure largement théorique. En utilisant un sondage en ligne, nous avons évalué les opinions, les croyances et les attitudes d’experts légaux et cliniques à propos de l’impact des facteurs développementaux sur la responsabilité morale des jeunes. Nos résultats suggèrent que la communauté légale est modérément consciente de la recherche émergente en science développementale portant sur la responsabilité morale des jeunes. Or le fossé entre la théorie et la pratique persiste. En ce qui a trait à la responsabilité morale des adolescents et leur capacité à subir un procès, par exemple, les policiers attribuent significativement moins d’importance aux facteurs développementaux que ne le font les experts cliniques. Nous soulignons le besoin d’un dialogue plus rapproché entre le droit et la science développementale pour favoriser la création d’un consensus et pour améliorer le traitement des jeunes délinquants.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7202/1013725ar

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Research works printed but not linked: 81

  1. Agnew, R. (2003). An integrated theory of the adolescent peak in offending. Youth and Society, 34(3), 263-299. · DOI · Paper page
  2. Arredondo, D. E. (2003). Child development, children’s mental health and the juvenile justice system. Stanford Law and Policy Review, 14, 13-28.
  3. Baerger, D. R., Griffin, E. F., Lyons, J. S., & Simmons, R. (2003). Competency to stand trial in preadjudicated and petitioned juvenile defendants. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 31(3), 314-320.
  4. Bala, N., Carrington, P., & Roberts, J. (2009). Evaluating the Youth Criminal Justice Act after five years : A qualified success. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice/La Revue Canadienne de Criminologie et de Justice Pénale, 51(2), 131-167. · DOI
  5. Beckett, K. (1999). Making crime pay : Law and order in contemporary American politics : Oxford University Press, USA. · DOI
  6. Bonham, E. (2006). Adolescent mental health and the juvenile justice system. Pediatric Nursing, 32(6), 591-595.
  7. Bonnie, R. J., & Grisso, T. (2000). Adjudicative competence and youthful offenders. In T. Grisso & R. G. Schwartz (eds.), Youth on trial : A developmental perspective on juvenile justice (73-103). Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
  8. Bosnjak, M., Neubarth, W., Couper, M. P., Bandilla, W., & Kaczmirek, L. (2007). Prenotification in web-based access panel surveys : The influence of mobile text messaging versus e-mail on response rates and sample composition. Social Science Computer Review, 0894439307305895. doi : 10.1177/0894439307305895 · DOI
  9. Brown, R. A., Novak, K. J., & Frank, J. (2009). Identifying variation in police officer behavior between juveniles and adults. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(2), 200-208. · DOI
  10. Burleson, B. R. (2003). The experience and effects of emotional support : What the study of cultural and gender differences can tell us about close relationships, emotion, and interpersonal communication. Personal Relationships, 10(1), 1-23. · DOI · Paper page
  11. Bushway, S. D., & Piehl, A. M. (2007). The inextricable link between age and criminal history in sentencing. Crime and Delinquency, 53(1), 156-183. · DOI
  12. Callegaro, M., & Disogra, C. (2008). Computing response metrics for online panels. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(5), 1008-1032. · DOI · Paper page
  13. Carrington, P. J., & Schulenberg, J. L. (2008). Structuring police discretion. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19(3), 349-367. · DOI
  14. Cauffman, E., & Steinberg, L. (2000a). (Im)maturity in adolescence : Why adolescents may be less culpable than adults. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 18, 741-760. · DOI · Paper page
  15. Cauffman, E., & Steinberg, L. (2000b). Researching adolescents’ judgment and culpability. In T. Grisso & R. G. Schwartz (eds.), Youth on trial : A developmental perspective on juvenile justice (325-343). Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
  16. Cauffman, E., Woolard, J., & Reppucci, N. D. (1999). Justice for juveniles : New perspectives on adolescents’ competence and culpability. Quinnipiac Law Review, 18, 403-913.
  17. Cesaroni, C., & Bala, N. (2008). Deterrence as a principle of youth sentencing : No effect on youth, but a significant on judges. Queen’s Law Journal, 34, 447.
  18. Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R. L. (2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in Web-or Internet-based surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(6), 821-836. · DOI · Paper page
  19. Couper, M. P. (2000). Review : Web surveys : A review of issues and approaches. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64(4), 464-494. · DOI · Paper page
  20. Couper, M. P. (2007). Issues of representation in eHealth research (with a focus on web surveys). American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 32(5), S83-S89. · DOI
  21. Couper, M. P., & Miller, P. V. (2008). Web survey methods : Introduction. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(5), 831-835. · DOI · Paper page
  22. Couper, M. P., Tourangeau, R., & Steiger, D. M. (2001). Social presence in web surveys. Paper presented at the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Seattle, Washington, United States. · DOI
  23. Crawford, S. D., Couper, M. P., & Lamias, M. J. (2001). Web surveys : Perceptions of burden. Social Science Computer Review, 19(2), 146-162. · DOI · Paper page
  24. Cuellar, A. E., McReynolds, L. S., & Wasserman, G. A. (2006). A cure for crime : Can mental health treatment diversion reduce crime among youth ? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 25(1), 197-214. · DOI
  25. Diamond, A. (2006). The early development of executive functions. Lifespan Cognition : Mechanisms of Change, 70-95. · DOI · Paper page
  26. Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys : The Tailored design method (2nd edition ed.). New York : John Wiley and Sons.
  27. Drizin, S. A., & Leo, R. A. (2004). The problem of false confessions in the post-DNA world. North Carolina Law Review, 82, 891-2155.
  28. Engel, R. S., Sobol, J. J., & Worden, R. E. (2000). Further exploration of the demeanor hypothesis : The interaction effects of suspects’ characteristics and demeanor on police behavior. Justice Quarterly, 17(2), 235-258. · DOI · Paper page
  29. Fagan, J. (2008). Juvenile crime and criminal justice : Resolving border disputes. The Future of Children, 18(2), 81-118. · DOI
  30. Feld, B. C. (2006). Police interrogation of juveniles : An empirical study of policy and practice. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 219-316.
  31. Forrest, C. B., Tambor, E., Riley, A. W., Ensminger, M. E., & Starfield, B. (2000). The health profile of incarcerated male youths. Pediatrics, 105(1), 286-291. · DOI
  32. Galligan, D. J. (1990). Discretionary powers : A legal study of official discretion. Oxford : Clarendon Press. · DOI
  33. Gardner, W., & Steinberg, L. (2005). Peer influence on risk taking, risk preference, and risky decision making in adolescence and adulthood : An experimental study. Developmental Psychology, 41, 625-635. · DOI · Paper page
  34. Giedd, J. N., Blumenthal, J., Jeffries, N. O., Castellanos, F. X., Liu, H., Zijdenbos, A., Paus, T. Evans, A. C., & Rapoport, J. L. (1999). Brain development during childhood and adolescence : A longitudinal MRI study. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 861-862. · DOI · Paper page
  35. Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford : Stanford University Press. · DOI · Paper page
  36. Greenberg, M. T., Riggs, N. R., & Blair, C. (2007). The role of preventive interventions in enhancing neurocognitive functioning and promoting competence in adolescence. Adolescent Psychopathology and the Developing Brain : Integrating Brain and Prevention Science, 441-461. · DOI
  37. Greenberger, E., & Sørensen, A. B. (1974). Toward a concept of psychosocial maturity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 3(4), 329-358. · DOI · Paper page
  38. Grisso, T. (2005). Clinical evaluations for juveniles’ competence to stand trial : A guide for legal professionals. Sarasota : Professional Resource Press.
  39. Jackson, R. (2008). Learning forensic assessment. New York : Routledge. · doi:10.4324/9780203939888
  40. Jennings, J. C. (2010). Juvenile Justice, Sullivan, and Graham : How the Supreme Court’s decision will change the neuroscience debate. Duke Law and Technology Review, 6-7.
  41. Kambam, P., & Thompson, C. (2009). The development of decision-making capacities in children and adolescents : Psychological and neurological perspectives and their implications for juvenile defendants. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 27(2), 173-190. · DOI
  42. Keating, D. P. (2004). Cognitive and brain development. Handbook of adolescent psychology, 2, 45-84. · DOI · Paper page
  43. Kostelnik, J. O., & Reppucci, N. D. (2009). Reid training and sensitivity to developmental maturity in interrogation : Results from a national survey of police. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 27, 361-379. · DOI
  44. Kreuter, F., Presser, S., & Tourangeau, R. (2008). Social desirability bias in CATI, IVR, and web surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(5), 847-865. · DOI · Paper page
  45. Kulin, H. E., Finkelstein, J. W., Susman, E., Chinchilli, V., Liben, L., Schwab, J., Demers, L., & D’Arcangelo, M. R. (2000). The role of sex hormones on the control of behavior during human puberty. In J. P. Bourguignon & T. M. Plant (Eds.), Onset of Puberty in Perspective (Vol. 1202, pp. 389-405). Amsterdam : Elsevier Science Bv.
  46. Laberge, D., Morin, D., & Robert, M. (1995). La réforme du Code criminel canadien en matière de troubles mentaux et son impact sur la détention des justiciables. Criminologie, 28(2), 61-83. · doi:10.7202/017373ar
  47. Luciana, M. (2011). Development of the adolescent brain : Neuroethical implications for the understanding of executive function and social cognition. In J. Illes & B. J. Sahakian (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of neuroethics. New York : Oxford University Press. · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199570706.013.0025
  48. Magar, E. C. E., Phillips, L. H., Hosie, & A, J. (2008). Self-regulation and risk-taking. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(2), 153-159. · DOI · Paper page
  49. Manfreda, K. L., Bosnjak, M., Berzelak, J., Haas, I., & Vehovar, V. (2008). Web surveys versus other survey modes : A meta-analysis comparing response rates. International Journal of Market Research, 50(1), 79-104. · DOI · Paper page
  50. Maroney, T. A. (2009). The false promise of adolescent brain science in juvenile justice. Notre Dame Law Review, 85(1), 89-176.
  51. Martin, S. (2003). MDs’ office Internet use hits 57 %. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 168(4), 475.
  52. Maxwell, K. A. (2002). Friends : The role of peer influence across adolescent risk behaviors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31(4), 267-277. · DOI · Paper page
  53. Meyer, J. R., & Reppucci, N. D. (2007). Police practices and perceptions regarding juvenile interrogation and interrogative suggestibility. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 25(6), 757-780. · doi:10.1002/bsl.774
  54. Myers, D. M., & Farrell, A. F. (2008). Reclaiming lost opportunities : Applying public health models in juvenile justice. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(10), 1159-1177. · DOI
  55. Pealer, L. N., Weiler, R. M., Pigg, R. M., Miller, D., & Dorman, S. M. (2001). The feasibility of a web-based surveillance system to collect health risk behavior data from college students. Health Education and Behavior, 28(5), 547-559. · DOI · Paper page
  56. Pfaff, J. F. (2006). The continued vitality of structured sentencing following Blakely : The effectiveness of voluntary guidelines. UCLA Law Review, 54, 235-308. · doi:10.2139/ssrn.869977
  57. Redding, R. E., & Frost, L. E. (2002). Adjudicative competence in the modern juvenile court. Virginia Journal of Social Psychology and Law, 9, 353-410. · doi:10.2139/ssrn.376801
  58. Roberts, J. V. (1997). The role of criminal record in the sentencing process. Crime and Justice, 22, 303-362. · DOI
  59. Sax, L., Gilmartin, S., Lee, J., & Hagedorn, L. S. (2008). Using web surveys to reach community college students : An analysis of response rates and response bias. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 32(9), 712-729. · DOI
  60. Scott, E. S. (2000). The legal construction of adolescence. Hofstra Law Review, 29, 547-598.
  61. Scott, E. S., & Steinberg, L. (2008). Rethinking juvenile justice. Cambridge : Harvard University Press. · DOI · Paper page
  62. Sherman, R., & Hickner, J. (2008). Academic physicians use placebos in clinical practice and believe in the mind–body connection. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 23(1), 7-10. · DOI · Paper page
  63. Shonkoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods : The science of early childhood development. Washington : National Academy Press.
  64. Shook, J. J., Vaughn, M. G., Litschge, C., Kolivoski, K., & Schelbe, L. (2009). The importance of friends among foster youth aging out of care : Cluster profiles of deviant peer affiliations. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(2), 284-291. · DOI
  65. Smith, C. B. (1997). Casting the net : Surveying an Internet population. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(1). · DOI · Paper page
  66. Sowell, E. R., Thompson, P. M., Holmes, C. J., Jernigan, T. L., & Toga, A. W. (1999). In vivo evidence for postadolescent brain maturation in frontal and striatal regions. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 859-860. · DOI · Paper page
  67. Spear, L. P. (2000). The adolescent brain and age-related behavioral manifestations. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 24(4), 417-463. · DOI · Paper page
  68. Steinberg, L., & Piquero, A. R. (2010). Manipulating public opinion about trying juveniles as adults : An experimental study. Crime & Delinquency, 56(4), 487-506. · doi:10.1177/0011128708330179
  69. Steinberg, L., & Scott, E. S. (2003). Less guilty by reason of adolescence : Developmental immaturity, diminished responsibility, and the juvenile death penalty. American Psychologist, 58, 1009-1018. · DOI · Paper page
  70. Tse, A. C. B., Tse, K. C., Yin, C. H., Ting, C. B., Yi, K. W., Yee, K. P., & Hong, W. C. (1995). Comparing two methods of sending out questionnaires : E-mail versus mail. Journal of the Market Research Society, 37(4), 441-446. · DOI
  71. Tufts, J., & Roberts, J. V. (2002). Sentencing juvenile offenders : Comparing public preferences and judicial practice. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 13(1), 46-64. · doi:10.1177/0887403402013001004
  72. Umbach, P. D. (2004). Web surveys : Best practices. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2004(121), 23-38. · DOI · Paper page
  73. Vieira, T. A., Skilling, T. A., & Peterson-Badali, M. (2009). Matching court-ordered services with treatment needs. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(4), 385-401. · DOI · Paper page
  74. Viljoen, J. L., & Grisso, T. (2007). Prospects for remediating juveniles’ adjudicative incompetence Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 13, 87-273. · DOI
  75. Viljoen, J. L., & Roesch, R. (2005). Competence to waive interrogation rights and adjudicative competence in adolescent defendants : Cognitive development, attorney contact, and psychological symptoms. Law and Human Behavior, 29(6), 723-742. · DOI
  76. White, H. (1980). A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica, 48(4), 817-838. · DOI · Paper page
  77. Witmer, D. F., Colman, R. W., & Katzman, S. L. (1999). From paper-and-pencil to screen-and-keyboard : Toward a methodology for survey research on the Internet. In S. Jones (Ed.), Doing Internet research : Critical issues and methods for examining the Net (pp. 145-161). · DOI
  78. Woolard, J. L., Fondacaro, M. R., & Slobogin, C. (2001). Informing juvenile justice policy : Directions for behavioral science research. Law and Human Behavior, 25(1), 13-24. · DOI
  79. Graham c. Florida. (2010). 78 U.S.L.W. 4387. · doi:10.1511/2010.82.78
  80. R. c. D.B. (2008). S.C.C. 25. · doi:10.12968/prps.2008.1.91.38101
  81. Roper c. Simmons. (2005). 543 U.S. 551. · doi:10.2307/3491539

Cited by

See all 1

Metadata

Authors
Demacheva, I., Aubert Bonn, N., Lucero, S., Ladouceur, M., Raz, A., & Mzouji, R.
Affiliations
  • Département de psychiatrie, Université McGill
  • Département de psychologie, Université McGill
  • Département de génétique humaine, Université McGill
Venue
Criminologie
Publisher
Consortium Erudit
Published
2013-01-25
Volume
45
Issue
2
Pages
187-218
ISSN
  • 1492-1367
  • 0316-0041
DOI
10.7202/1013725ar
Cited by
1
References
6

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Le role des facteurs developpementaux dans la determination de la responsabilite morale chez les jeunes: une etude pilote evaluant les opinions d'experts legaux et cliniques. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7202/1013725ar
The paper
Demacheva, I., Aubert Bonn, N., Lucero, S., Ladouceur, M., Raz, A., & Mzouji, R. (2013). Le role des facteurs developpementaux dans la determination de la responsabilite morale chez les jeunes: une etude pilote evaluant les opinions d'experts legaux et cliniques. Criminologie. https://doi.org/10.7202/1013725ar

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.