Competency to Stand Trial
DRAWING THE LINE
At any point in criminal proceedings that a defendant shows signs of mental illness, his competence to proceed to stand trial may be questioned (Winick, 2002). The issue may be brought up when he pleads guilty, waives certain constitutional rights, at sentencing hearing or when administering punishment, including capital punishment. Either the defense or prosecution or the court itself may raise the issue, even if the defendant himself objects to it. But mental illness alone, even schizophrenia, does not automatically produce a finding of incompetence. Rather, it is based on the degree of functional damage produced by the illness. Two conditions must be satisfied in order to be adjudged incompetent to stand trial. It focuses on the defendant's mental state during trial. It is differentiated from the legal insanity defense, which is based on the defendant's mental state at the time of the criminal act (Winick).
Research reveals that many defendants inappropriately seek and gain competency evaluation and as part of a delaying strategy (Winick, 2002). Either side resorts to this strategy. Prosecutors seek it to avoid bail or an insanity acquittal, or hospitalization if available by law. Defense attorneys seek it to secure mental health recommendations as part of an insanity defense, plea bargaining or sentencing (Winick).
Several studies conclude that the vast majority of defendants are referred inappropriately for competency evaluation and have suggested that the competency process often is invoked for strategic purposes (Winick, 2002). The issue may be raised by both sides to obtain delay, by prosecutors to avoid bail or an expected insanity acquittal, or to bring about hospitalization that might not otherwise be available under the state's civil commitment statute, or by defense attorneys to obtain mental health recommendations for use in making an insanity defense, in plea bargaining, or in sentencing (Winick)
Thirty studies were conducted to compare 8,170 competent and incompetent criminal defendants to determine the characteristics, which related to incompetency ((Nicholson & Kugler, 1991). These were poor performance in psychological tests or interviews on defendants' legally relevant functional capabilities; a psychotic diagnosis, and psychiatric symptoms, indicating severe psychopathology. Lesser characteristics were traditional psychological tests, previous psychiatric hospitalization, previous legal involvement, marital resources, and demographic characteristics (Nicholson & Kugler).
Practice Guideline
This describes how psychiatrists should evaluate criminal defendants' competence to stand trial (Mossman et al., 2007). It specifies standards of practice and principles and an analysis of an individual defendant's case in the light of applicable laws in the jurisdiction. Recommendations reflect and are limited by evolving case law, statutory requirements, legal publications and current psychiatric knowledge. The review of psychiatric diagnoses is drawn from general trends. Reviewing psychiatrists should remain aware of the jurisdiction's interpretation of laws. They use their expertise in the direction of providing assurance about the defendant's mental state. Before allowing him to face criminal prosecution and possible punishment, the courts must receive assurance to come from careful and expert individualized evaluation on his mental capacity for a defense. The psychiatrist's opinion should come from an understanding of jurisdictional standard and how the defendant's mental condition affect his competence. The psychiatrist's report should describe this opinion and the reasoning that leads to it. The psychiatrist should provide the courts with the information needed to assure them that the defendant can sufficiently defend and protect himself (Mossman et al.).
Dusky Standards
The competence of a defendant to stand trial was determined by the conclusion of the case, Dusky v. United States (Felthous, 2001). Later referred to as the Dusky Standard, it established the two elements of competency. First, the defendant must possess rational and factual understanding of the charges and the associated penalties. Second, he must possess the capability cooperate with an attorney for this defense. The Court found this formulation an appropriate test of competency throughout the criminal process and as a bare constitutional requirement. It emphasizes the importance of cognitive capability to understand and the behavioral ability to consult and coordinate with a lawyer. It does not require the defendant to engage in any rational decision-making (Felthous).
This Standard is explicit in the requirement of rational understanding for determining a defendant's competence to stand trial (Felthous, 2001). Most courts do not. After the Dusky decision, court disposition has remained ambiguous about it. This Standard requires that the defendant's...
It is clear that Mr. Moran met the legal standard for competency. Because of concerns about his competency, likely prompted by Moran's suicide attempt, the trial court had Moran examined by two psychiatrists. Both doctors found him competent. The dissent attempted to question Moran's competency by citing notes one of the psychiatrist had made, which suggested that Moran's guilt may have hampered his ability to give his best efforts towards
Competency of Offender Evaluating an individuals competence to stand trial can become a daunting task when hideous crimes have been committed. From a forensic psychologist's point-of-view, complete unbiased, non-judgmental, and purely scientific fact must be considered when providing such an evaluation (Greene & Heilbrun, 2011). In the given case, many things are to be taken into consideration before being able to fully judge the extent of the disturbance in the offenders
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. After the evaluation, the court makes a decision as to whether the juvenile is competent to stand trial. The juvenile's attorney,
Even if they were in a solid state of mind during the crime itself, that does not mean that they automatically will be when the trial comes. If the trial comes and the person is not competent and/or able to assist in their own defense, there is a good chance that the trial will be delayed until the person can be treated and thus be able to assist in
The forensic psychology sphere can use the competency of juvenile discussion in a number of ways. First, any competency hearing of a juvenile needs to take into account that the offender's mind is still forming and finalizing and it is not the same thing as assessing a person who is, for example forty years old. That being said, younger offenders do typically know right from wrong and it is possible
Administering Competency Screening Tests on a Minor Balancing between Competency Screening Test (CST) expectations and demands of a given situation is normally an uphill task for CST administrators. A CST tool administers tests on juvenile or mentally challenged individuals. The process is tedious since there are several situations of communication breakdown, and this endangers the processes. For this reason, the administering official should display a proper and a higher degree of
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now