Teenagers Doing Time

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01conv.html
December 1, 2009

A Conversation With Laurence Steinberg
Developmental Psychologist Says Teenagers Are Different

By CLAUDIA DREIFUS

Laurence Steinberg, a developmental psychologist at Temple University in
Philadelphia, is one of the leading experts in the United States on
adolescent
behavior and adolescent brain biology. Dr. Steinberg, 57, has won the $1
million Klaus J. Jacobs Research Prize, which will be awarded to him at a
ceremony in early December in Switzerland. Here is an edited version of two
conversations with Dr. Steinberg last month:

Q. YOU HEAR PARENTS SOMETIMES SAY, “I’M LIVING WITH AN INSANE PERSON. MY
CHILD
IS A TEENAGER.” ARE THEY BEING HYPERBOLIC?

A. I’m not one of those people who labels adolescence as some sort of mental
illness. Teenagers are not crazy. They’re different.

When it comes to crime, they are less responsible for their behavior than
adults. And typically, in the law, we don’t punish people as much who are
less
responsible. We know from our lab that adolescents are more impulsive,
thrill-seeking, drawn to the rewards of a risky decision than adults. They
tend to not focus very much on costs. They are more easily coerced to do
things they know are wrong. These factors, under the law, make people less
responsible for criminal acts. The issue is: as a class, should we treat
adolescents differently?

Q. IS THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM BEGINNING TO TAKE THESE DIFFERENCES INTO
ACCOUNT DURING SENTENCING?

A. It’s been coming up in cases. I went to Washington in November to watch
the
oral arguments in two related cases before the Supreme Court that ask:
should
someone who committed a crime as a teen be subjected to life imprisonment
without a chance for parole, ever?

With these cases, and another in 2005 where the high court threw out the
death
penalty for adolescents, I was scientific consultant to the American
Psychological Association on its amicus brief. What we said in the death
penalty case — and now — was that we have considerable evidence showing that
adolescents are different from adults in ways that mitigate their criminal
responsibility. But since 2005, there’s been a lot of new scientific
evidence
supporting this position.

Q. WHAT IS THE NEW EVIDENCE?

A. In the last five years, as neuroscience has moved forward with functional
magnetic resonance imaging and with research on animals, there have been
dozens of new studies of adolescent brain development. These show that the
brain systems providing for impulse control are still maturing during
adolescence. Neuroscientists have shown that the part of the brain that
improves most during adolescence is the prefrontal cortex, which is involved
in complicated decision-making, thinking ahead, planning, comparing risks
and
rewards. And the neuroscientific research is showing that over the course of
adolescence and into the 20s, there is this continued maturation of this
part
of the brain. So now, we have brain evidence that supports behavioral
studies.

Moreover, we’re seeing that behavior can change once the brain more fully
matures. Take thrill-seeking, for instance. What happens is that when people
move out of adolescence, they become less interested in it. For example, I
can’t stand riding on a roller-coaster now. I liked it as a teenager. I can’t
stand driving fast now. I liked driving fast when I was a teenager. What has
changed? I’m not as driven today by this thrill-seeking sensation. And in
our
studies, we’ve shown that there is a kind of normative decline in
sensation-seeking after middle adolescence. A lot of adolescent crime is
driven by thrill-seeking.

Q. HOW DOES THIS NEW INFORMATION

lead to concluding that the courts shouldn’t sentence some adolescents to
life
in prison without parole?

A. Given the fact that we know that there will be a developmental change in
most people, the science says that we should give them a chance to mature
out
of it. No one is saying that kids who commit horrific crimes shouldn’t be
punished. But most in the scientific community think that we know that since
this person is likely to change, why not revisit this when he’s an adult and
see what he’s like?

Q. DO YOU HAVE TEENAGERS AT HOME?

A. We have a son, Ben, who is now 25 and who works at Random House. He did
something as a teenager that led me to a whole program of research. He and
some friends went to the window of a girl they knew and inadvertently set
off
a burglar alarm. When a police squad car came, they panicked and fled. When
I
found out, I said: “Do you realize that you were running from armed police
officers who thought they were interrupting a break-in. What were you
thinking?” He said: “Well, that’s the problem. I wasn’t.” I wondered: “What
goes on when kids are in a peer group that pushes them to make bad
decisions?”

Since then, we’ve had people of different ages come to the lab and bring two
friends with them. We give them computerized risk-taking tests while we
image
their brains. We compare brain activity when individuals are watched by
their
friends and when they are alone. For the adults, the presence of friends has
no effect. But for adolescents, just having friends nearby doubles the
number
of risks they take. We’ve found that a certain part of the brain is
activated
by the presence of peers in adolescents, but not in adults.

Q. YOU ADVISED THE DEFENSE TEAM OF OMAR KHADR, THE YOUNGEST DETAINEE AT
GUANTáNAMO BAY. WHY GET INVOLVED IN THAT CASE?

A. Because he was 15 when he was captured in a safe house in Afghanistan,
where he’d been sent by his father, who was active in Al Qaeda. There was a
battle in 2002 to take this house where American troops died.

He was interrogated for many hours and admitted to having thrown a grenade
that killed an American soldier. He later recanted. I was asked by his
Defense
Department counsel to advise on whether what he said during interrogation
was
reliable and his degree of culpability, if he did do it.

In my deposition, I said I don’t know whether he did it or not, but there
are
studies that say that adolescents are more likely than adults to give false
confessions. There’s the Central Park jogger case, where it turned out a
group
of teenagers gave false confessions. Five were convicted. Several years
later,
an adult murderer and rapist confessed to the crime.