Competency Psychology Post Two Specific

Competency

Psychology

Post two specific rules or regulations from your state's juvenile justice code that relate to the alleged perpetrator in the case study. Explain how the rules or regulations relate to and would address the situation in the case study.

is a 12-year-old boy "who was accused of sexual battery and but who received a diagnosis of "mild to moderate mental retardation and autism" and thus was not found to be competent to stand trial in the state of Indiana (Sirkin 2004: 267). The question of juvenile competency remains a contentious issue within the legal community. Juveniles are by definition less competent than adults in the sense that they are evaluated differently from adults in the justice system: the juvenile justice system attempts to rehabilitate the juvenile; wipes the perpetrator's record 'clean' upon the juvenile's becoming an adult; and also attempts to do what is best for the juvenile as well as for the victim. However, juveniles must possess the ability to understand court proceedings and "to assist in their defenses" even if they are not adults under the law (Sirkin 2004: 267). In the case of K.G., the boy's mental condition was eventually determined to make him incompetent to stand trial. The Indiana Supreme Court found that adult standards should not be applied to juveniles regarding competency and while it "did not set any new guidelines for juvenile competency evaluations," it "found that the adult guidelines did not apply to children and emphasized the broad discretion of the juvenile courts to create dispositions in the best interest of the child" (Sirkin 2004: 268).

K.G's case was located in Indiana thus the question arises if his fate would have been any different had he been located in my current state of Virginia. It seems likely that he would have also been found incompetent to stand trial but Virginia. But Virginia, in contrast to Indiana, provides specific legal guidelines regarding the procedures that must be followed regarding juveniles whose mental and emotional competency is under question. Pursuant to Virginia statute §16.1-356 "Raising question of competency to stand trial; evaluation and determination of competency. a. if, at any time after the attorney for the juvenile has been retained or appointed pursuant to a delinquency proceeding and before the end of trial…there is probable cause to believe that the juvenile lacks substantial capacity to understand the proceedings against him or to assist his attorney in his own defense, the court shall order that a competency evaluation be performed by at least one psychiatrist, clinical psychologist, licensed professional counselor, licensed clinical social worker, or licensed marriage and family therapist, who is qualified by training and experience in the forensic evaluation of juveniles" (LIS -- Code of Virginia). Thus, a juvenile-specific evaluation is mandated and the evaluation must be performed by someone with juvenile-specific experience (which was not necessarily the case for the initial evaluation of K.G. In Indiana, based upon the facts presented). Virginia law also provides strict guidelines regarding how the evaluation must be performed.