The Teenage Brain (Or Lack Thereof)

by Donna Pendergast

As every parent of a teenager knows, the teenage brain is different from the adult brain. All jokes aside, some of these differences have neurobiological and neuropsychological underpinnings. Although the adolescent brain is fully grown in size it is a long way from mature. Along with everything else in the body the brain changes significantly in adolescence.

According to recent studies and neuroimaging research the prefrontal cortex of the human brain, which controls planning, emotion, impulse control, and the ability to assess future consequences, is not fully developed until one is in their early- to mid-twenties. This research confirms that the distinction between teenagers and adults is more than one of age. It is one of physiological maturation.

Is an immature brain an excuse for committing a crime? The hot-button issue in juvenile criminal justice today is how to deal with the physical reality of brain development while demanding accountability for crimes committed by teens.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF A BRAIN

A key difference between adolescent and adult brains concerns the frontal lobe. During maturation, the human brain develops from front to back. The largest part of the brain, the frontal lobes, are in the front part of the cerebrum, the most sophisticated area of the brain. The size of the frontal lobes does not change significantly during the adolescent years but there are dramatic changes in their composition. A small area of the frontal lobes, the prefrontal cortices, are the last areas of the brain to evolve during the development process.

The adolescent brain truly is a work in progress. Two processes are taking place at a rapid rate: pruning, the process by which unnecessary nerve synapses (gray matter) in the frontal lobe are eliminated) as well as myelination, involving white matter that envelops connections to stabilize them. This conversion of gray to white matter is critical to making the brain's operation more efficient and developing the neural networks regulating behavior. The frontal lobes regulate the amygdala, the brain's emotional center, which controls anger, fear, recklessness, and gut responses.

A fully developed prefrontal cortex helps adults predict the consequences of their actions. In adolescents, the less developed prefrontal cortex affects the adolescent's ability for mental reasoning, decision-making, and assessment of consequences.

WHERE TO DRAW THE LINE

What are the implications of adolescent brain development on the juvenile justice system? Because their brains are not fully mature, teens have a more limited capacity to self-regulate their impulses. Teens do not handle social pressure and other stresses the way adults do. However, despite brain immaturity, the fact remains that the vast majority of teens do not commit Columbine-type massacres and other forms of violent crime.

Is the greater question what is wrong with our country that we have such a pervasive problem with violent juvenile crime? Other developed countries do not have anywhere near our violent juvenile crime rate.

It's easy to know what to do with a teen such as Jean Pierre Orliewcz. Orliewcz (pictured right) was recently tried in the Wayne County Circuit Court in Detroit for stabbing to death an acquaintance and then telling him "just let it take over" as his victim lay dying in a pool of blood on a garage floor. Orliewcz then beheaded his victim and used a blow torch in an attempt to obliterate the victim's fingerprints and further conceal his identity. He later told authorities that he was "excited" by the idea of killing someone and getting away with it. At his sentencing last month, the judge told Orlewicz "There is a difference between mental illness and evil. You are tantamount to evil."

Clearly we cannot allow juveniles to be exonerated from any consequences for their criminal actions. An immature brain should not entitle juvenile offenders to a "get out of jail free card." Teenagers who demonstrate a vicious and callous disregard for human life must not be allowed to blame their actions on an undeveloped brain and walk away from their crime. But what about the criminal cases that are less clear-cut and do not involve the taking of a human life?

Neuroimaging research alone cannot determine an adolescent's criminal responsibility. Imaging is not diagnostic and you cannot do a scan to settle moral and legal questions. The big issue is: How do we balance necessary deterrence and the need to protect society with the best practices that encourage rehabilitation of a juvenile offender? There are no easy answers.

Statements made in this post are my own and not intended to reflect the views, opinions, or position of the Michigan Attorney General or the Michigan Department of Attorney General.

Tweet

The CSI Effect

by Jenna Jackson

Some of the most popular shows on television right now—CSI, Law and Order, Criminal Minds—are having a real effect on courtrooms across the country. When I started at CBS News 10 years ago, most of the people I would call for a story had no idea how DNA testing actually worked—they had no clue it was blood spatter, not splatter.

These days, people are far more savvy. Nearly every day, I'm asked a question that throws me—what kind of DNA typing was done at a scene, whether a person was polygraphed and by which expert. People know to ask detailed questions about criminal cases—and they learn most of what they know from watching TV dramas.

But most of the time, I have to explain that although CSI portrays a criminal investigation one way (DNA takes minutes, instead of months), real life is a lot slower and more complicated.

I think juries have become much more savvy, too—and they expect a lot more. This can be good and bad. It has certainly made trials more interesting to watch. Lawyers on both sides of the courtroom are forced to ratchet up the drama when presenting their cases—juries watch enough of these shows that they expect a show in the courtroom.

They also often want real, physical evidence to connect a defendant to a crime in order to convict. This is making things a little tougher on prosecutors, who for years have had the clear advantage from the opening of a trial.

Juries seem to expect a case where all the loose ends are tied up—but most real-life cases aren't delivered to a prosecutor in a neat little package. This is especially true in cold cases where evidence at the scene may have been scarce or not properly collected—and where witnesses have disappeared or died.

I recently covered a case in Houston where there was absolutely no physical evidence connecting the defendant to the murder scene. These types of cases are difficult for all sides—and tend to leave unanswered questions even after a verdict is returned.

But there is a case right now—half a world away in Perugia, Italy—where physical evidence was collected at the scene of a brutal murder. A suspect was arrested within days—but the physical evidence doesn't necessarily match the suspect in this case. She just matches the police theory of the crime, which can sometimes be an entirely different thing than concrete evidence. Amanda Knox (pictured above), a Seattle college student living in Perugia to attend college, definitely gave police reason to be suspicious. But as every good detective knows, people can act suspicious for a number of reasons.

48 Hours is airing a one-hour show on this case Saturday at 9 p.m. CDT. It centers around two beautiful college students—one, a victim of a vicious murder, and the other, a possible victim of an overzealous police force. I didn't have anything to do with producing this particular case, but it is so intriguing because of the issues it raises: how an American is treated as the target of a criminal investigation in a foreign country; how police can sometimes get tunnel vision and focus on one suspect to the exclusion of other possibilities; and how scenarios are created that make false confessions possible and almost probable.

Because there were so many questions in this case, 48 Hours hired a private eye to conduct his own investigation. He came up with a stunning theory of his own: Amanda Knox was being railroaded by the Italian authorities.

This case is one of those that makes you realize you can't always trust how a story looks in the beginning—once everything unfolds, it can turn into an entirely different tale. Even after nearly a decade with this show, I learn that lesson every single day.

Be sure to check out this week's Mystery Man for more details—he has a unique, behind-the-scenes vantage point of this particular case.

Tweet