Public Policy & Psychology

To the general populace, science is often perceived as a collection of facts. While science does include this comprehensive body of knowledge, science is also the process by which theories are transformed into powerful frameworks by which we can understand the world around us. In fact, more often than not, science provides us with a more complex and nuanced explanation of the world (in this case, the differing rates of adolescent cognitive development). In his rebuttal to Steinberg’s paper, “Reconciling the Complexity of Human Development With the Reality of Legal Policy,” Fischer notes this fact and argues that nuanced science is in many ways incompatible with the system of strict boundaries and delineation found within public policy. While it is true that science does not provide easy answers for dictating public policy, studies of cognitive and emotional development in adolescents are nonetheless useful for informing the debate on public policy. To this end we will examine how Steinberg et al attempt to reconcile the expediency of public policy development and the rigorous standards demanded by scientific inquiry.

New findings regarding the development of the adolescent brain have resulted in rethinking public policy as it relates to adolescents. In the case of Roper vs. Simmons, the Supreme Court ruled that the age at which individuals could be executed for capital crimes should be set at 18 rather than the previous age of 16. This ruling was very much centered on new findings regarding the development of the adolescent brain. In particular, the American Psychological Association prepared an amicus curiae brief for this case. Justice Anthony Kennedy drew attention to three particular aspects of adolescent immaturity: undeveloped sense of responsibility, heighted vulnerability to peer pressure, and unformed nature of their characters. This position was backed by the APA’s brief, yet appeared to be contradictory to a previous brief that stated adolescents had...