Chapter 5: Consulting with Criminal Courts

Question 1

Most common roles performed by psychologists consulting with criminal courts

Answer 1

• Competency evaluations
• Assessment of mental state at the time of the offense (criminal responsibility or sanity evaluations)
• Presentencing evaluations

Question 2

Forensic mental health assessments (FMHAs)

Answer 2

Conducted by psychologists and psychiatrists consulting with criminal courts. Competency to stand trial assessments and criminal responsibility evaluations are prominent examples.

Question 3

Risk assessments aid…

Answer 3

judges in bail decision making or at sentencing

Question 4

Competency to stand trial (CST)

Answer 4

The legal standard that requires that criminal defendants be able to understand and appreciate criminal charges and help their attorneys in preparing a defense.

Question 5

How many defendants evaluated for CST are found competent?

Answer 5

4 out of 5 defendants evaluated for CST are found competent

- 20 % of those evaluated are found incompetent

Question 6

What happens when the defendant is found incompetent?

Answer 6

When found incompetent efforts are made to restore the defendants to competency.
- This occurs in the forensic unit of a psychiatric hospital

Question 7

Why are competency evaluations so common?

Answer 7

• 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

Question 8

Adjudication competence

Answer 8

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

Question 9

Dusky Standard

Answer 9

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)

Question 10

Where are defendants evaluated for adjudicative competence?

Answer 10

• 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

Question 11

Competency assessment instruments

Answer 11

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

Question 12

Competency Screening Test (CST)

Answer 12

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

Question 13

Advantages and disadvantages of the competency screening test

Answer 13

• Advantage –> ability to screen out quickly the obviously competent defendants
• Disadvantage –> test has a high false-positive rate, identifying many competent defendants as incompetent

Question 14

The MacArthur Competency Assessment Tool - Criminal Adjudication (MacCAT-CA)

Answer 14

Defendants are provided with a description of a situation in which a person is charged with a crime and are asked questions about it.

Question 15

Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial - Revised (ECST-R)

Answer 15

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

Question 16

Why would someone malinger?

Answer 16

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

Question 17

Malingering

Answer 17

Individual consciously fabricates or grossly exaggerates their symptoms

Question 18

What tests detect malingering?

Answer 18

The Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS)

Question 19

Preponderance of evidence

Answer 19

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.

Question 20

Clear and convincing evidence

Answer 20

Legal standard achieved when the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable but does not reach the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.

Question 21

Beyond a reasonable doubt

Answer 21

The burden of proof that must be met by the government in all criminal cases.
- The most strict standard of proof

Question 22

How are people restored to competency?

Answer 22

This is usually achieved through psychotropic medication.

Question 23

Competency restoration

Answer 23

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

Question 24

Medication

Answer 24

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.

Question 25

People cannot be held responsible for crimes…

Answer 25

if they did not possess the “guilty mind” that is required at the time the criminal acts were committed.

Question 26

Mens rea

Answer 26

In criminal law, the guilty mind. It refers to the intent that is needed in order to be found guilty of a crime.

Question 27

Insanity

Answer 27

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.

Question 28

Competency vs. Insanity

Answer 28

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

Question 29

Insanity Defense Reform Act (IDRA)

Answer 29

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.

Question 30

Volitional prong

Answer 30

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

Question 31

Guilty but mentally ill (GBMI)

Answer 31

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

Question 32

What percentage of cases do defendants plead not guilty by reason of insanity?

Answer 32

1% to 3% of all felony criminal cases

Question 33

Acquittal rates of not guilty by reason of insanity

Answer 33

20% to 25%

- Acquittal does not mean freedom for NGRI defendants

Question 34

Dual - purpose evaluations

Answer 34

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.

Question 35

Criminal responsibility evaluations

Answer 35

Assessment designed to determine whether a defense of insanity can be supported. Also called “mental state at time of offense” evaluation or “insanity” evaluation.

Question 36

Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales (R-CRAS)

Answer 36

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

Question 37

Mental State at Time of the Offense Screening Evaluation (MSE)

Answer 37

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”

Question 38

Conditional release

Answer 38

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.

Question 39

Death penalty mitigation

Answer 39

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.

Question 40

Aggravating factors

Answer 40

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.