Laurence Steinberg formulated a theoretical model that offers an intriguing neurological explanation for Moffitt’s adolescent-limited offending. The model is based on a collection of empirical studies from developmental psychology and neuroscience. Steinberg (2008, 2010) hypothesized that the brain areas associated with the development of reward seeking and impulsivity, and self-regulation of behavior follow different timelines of development. These differences in the neurological timetables help account for the well-known high levels of risk taking during adolescence. As a general rule, impulsivity, sensation seeking, lack of future orientation and a strong susceptibility to peer pressure characterize adolescent behavior. Risk taking during…show more content… Research in developmental psychology explains the difference in cognitive capacity and psychosocial maturity between children including adolescents and adults that influence their decision-making in anti-social situations. Whether the juvenile understood the consequences of the offence or whether he or she had the mental and physical capacity to commit the offence is a narrow and non-holistic approach to respond to serious/heinous crimes. It fails to take into account the ongoing process of development and its impact on children, especially adolescents. According to Andrew Von Hirsch, Honorary Professor of Penal Theory and Penal Law at Cambridge University, “young adolescents, the reasoning must be, cannot reasonably be expected to have a fully fledged comprehension of what people’s basic interests are and how typical crimes affect those interests – because achieving this kind of understanding is a developmental process. Developing that understanding calls both for cognitive skills and capacity for moral reasoning which develop over time – and does so precisely during the period of adolescence...” While the cognitive levels of a 16 or 17 year old may match that of an adult, findings show that they lack psychosocial maturity levels as compared to adults. Adolescents are more prone to peer influence, are less likely to focus on future outcomes, are less risk-averse than adults, and evaluate risks and benefits differently. Further, the nature of the crime committed by the adolescent cannot be the sole criteria to determine whether persistent criminal propensities are present in an adolescent. It is highly likely that as the adolescent transitions into adulthood he will resort back
