Chapter 5: Consulting with Criminal Courts Flashcards
Most common roles performed by psychologists consulting with criminal courts
- Competency evaluations
- Assessment of mental state at the time of the offense (criminal responsibility or sanity evaluations)
- Presentencing evaluations
Forensic mental health assessments (FMHAs)
Conducted by psychologists and psychiatrists consulting with criminal courts. Competency to stand trial assessments and criminal responsibility evaluations are prominent examples.
Risk assessments aid…
judges in bail decision making or at sentencing
Competency to stand trial (CST)
The legal standard that requires that criminal defendants be able to understand and appreciate criminal charges and help their attorneys in preparing a defense.
How many defendants evaluated for CST are found competent?
4 out of 5 defendants evaluated for CST are found competent
- 20 % of those evaluated are found incompetent
What happens when the defendant is found incompetent?
When found incompetent efforts are made to restore the defendants to competency.
- This occurs in the forensic unit of a psychiatric hospital
Why are competency evaluations so common?
- Questions about a defendant’s competence can arise at many different stages of the criminal process
- An unknown number of criminal defendants are reevaluated over a period of years after their first cases have been resolved because they are charged with additional crimes
- The competency question can be raised not only by a defense attorney, but also by the prosecution or the judge
- The evaluation process has been made simpler with the development of competency assessment instruments
Adjudication competence
The ability to participate in variety of legal proceedings, including plea bargaining and participating in a criminal trial.
- Psychological research uses this term instead of the term competency to stand trial
Dusky Standard
Relates to juvenile and adult competency to stand trial and decision-making abilities. The rule holds that defendants must be able to understand and appreciate the criminal proceedings against them and be able to assist their attorneys in their defense.
- Applies to other competencies (competency to waive one’s Miranda rights, plead guilty, or engage in plea bargaining)
Where are defendants evaluated for adjudicative competence?
- A competency screening may be carried out very early in criminal justice processing –> while the defendant is being held in jail
- May be evaluated in the community, on an outpatient basis, while on pretrial release
Competency assessment instruments
There is little scientific evidence for the reliability and validity of many of the adjudicative competence measures and they do not seem to be widely used
- They aren’t meant to be solely relied on
- They serve as quick appraisals to determine if someone is potentially incompetent –> if they are then they are referred for a more extensive examination
Competency Screening Test (CST)
Sentence-completion examination intended to provide a quick assessment of a defendant’s competency to stand trial. The test taps the defendant’s knowledge about the role of the lawyer and the rudiments of the court process.
- If defendant scores below a certain level, they are evaluated more completely
Advantages and disadvantages of the competency screening test
- Advantage –> ability to screen out quickly the obviously competent defendants
- Disadvantage –> test has a high false-positive rate, identifying many competent defendants as incompetent
The MacArthur Competency Assessment Tool - Criminal Adjudication (MacCAT-CA)
Defendants are provided with a description of a situation in which a person is charged with a crime and are asked questions about it.
Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial - Revised (ECST-R)
Interview - based instrument that focuses on the Dusky standard
- Inquiries into the degree to which the defendant’s understand the role of their lawyers
Main feature of this instrument is its ability to detect malingering (faking) in defendants who want to be found incompetent
Why would someone malinger?
With respect to competency evaluations, criminal defendants may pretend they have symptoms of a serious disorder for a variety of reasons.
- Ex: delay proceedings, get a case dismissed, avoid a trial altogether
Malingering
Individual consciously fabricates or grossly exaggerates their symptoms
What tests detect malingering?
The Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS)
Preponderance of evidence
Proof that one side in a legal dispute has more evidence in its favor than the other. It is the standard required in most civil suits and may be relevant to criminal proceedings as well, but not to establish guilt.
Clear and convincing evidence
Legal standard achieved when the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable but does not reach the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.
Beyond a reasonable doubt
The burden of proof that must be met by the government in all criminal cases.
- The most strict standard of proof
How are people restored to competency?
This is usually achieved through psychotropic medication.
Competency restoration
The treatment to someone found incompetent to stand trial for the specific purpose of rendering the person competent to be tried.
- Does not need to be done in an institution
Medication
Medication is the primary approach taken to restore incompetent defendants to competency.
Antipsychotic or psychoactive drugs have improved significantly in effectiveness, but they still may produce unwanted side effects
- Because of these feared side effects, some individuals found incompetent to stand trial may challenge the government’s right to give them this medication.
People cannot be held responsible for crimes…
if they did not possess the “guilty mind” that is required at the time the criminal acts were committed.
Mens rea
In criminal law, the guilty mind. It refers to the intent that is needed in order to be found guilty of a crime.
Insanity
In the legal context, this term describes a judicial determination that an individual’s mental disorder relieves him or her of criminal responsibility for illegal actions.
Competency vs. Insanity
Competency –> one’s mental state at the time of the criminal justice proceedings
Sanity (or criminal responsibility) –> one’s mental state at the time of the crime
Insanity Defense Reform Act (IDRA)
The federal law passed in 1984 that changed the standard for determining insanity in federal courts and made it more difficult for defendants to use this defense.
Volitional prong
Even if a person knew the difference between right and wrong and was aware that what they were doing was wrong, evidence of an inability to control behavior satisfies the standard.
- Ex: person who is compelled by “voice” to kill the victims could be excused
Guilty but mentally ill (GBMI)
A verdict in some states that allows defendants to be found guilty while seemingly affording them treatment for mental disorders.
- The defendant did it but needs help
What percentage of cases do defendants plead not guilty by reason of insanity?
1% to 3% of all felony criminal cases
Acquittal rates of not guilty by reason of insanity
20% to 25%
- Acquittal does not mean freedom for NGRI defendants
Dual - purpose evaluations
Assessment of both a defendant’s competency to stand trial and criminal responsibility during the same evaluation. Dual - purpose evaluations are highly discouraged in legal and psychological literature but still occur with some frequency in many jurisdictions.
Criminal responsibility evaluations
Assessment designed to determine whether a defense of insanity can be supported. Also called “mental state at time of offense” evaluation or “insanity” evaluation.
Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales (R-CRAS)
Measures designed to assess criminal responsibility and detect malingering in cases where the defendant is considering raising or has raised an insanity defense.
- Most dominant forensic instruments related to insanity
Mental State at Time of the Offense Screening Evaluation (MSE)
One of the several tool used by clinicians to assess criminal responsibility, typically to determine whether an insanity defense could be supported.
- Way of both screening out the clearly not insane and screening in the “obviously insane”
Conditional release
Judicial or administrative release from an institutional setting (jail, prison, psychiatric hospital) on the condition that one demonstrates good behavior in the community or participates in mental health treatment.
Death penalty mitigation
In capital cases, attempts by the defense team to reduce or avoid the sentence of death for their client based on factors that lessen the offender’s culpability. Examples of mitigating factors are the offender’s age and a history of child abuse.
Aggravating factors
Circumstances surrounding a crime that heighten its seriousness for purposes of sentencing. An example would be an excessively heinous or cruel method of carrying out a crime, such as torture murder.
