Chapter 8 Flashcards
Incompetent to stand trial
- is?
- Supreme court
- Competent is?
- Incompetent is?
- Mental state
- avg time to restore competency
is a judicial determination that a defendant lacks sufficient ability to understand the legal process against them or to assist a lawyer in prep of defense. Represnts the most common referal for criminally realted forensic assessments
- U.S. Supreme Court has determined that the trial of such ppl violates constitution
- Competent to stand trial if they have sufficient present ability to consult with lawyer with a reaonsble degree of rational understanding and a rational/factual understanding of proceedings (enter plea, understand charges, assist in defense)
- Incompetence doesn’t refer to one’s mental or emotional state; may also refer to a lack of understanding of court proceedings, one’s rights, or functions of one’s lawyer
- competency to stand trial refers to defendants mental state at two diff points in time (if defendant pleads not guilty by reason of insanity law asks what was defendant’s state of mind at the time) vs. in competency considerations law asks what is defendants state of mind at present time or at trial?
- 3 months
Not guilty by reason of insanity
- Ex
A legal determination that a defendant was so mentally disordered at the time of the crime that he or she cannot be held criminally responsible for his or her actions
- Andrea Yates
Media and mentally ill
- Tv
Early survey showing 73% of mentally ill on tv are displayed violent. 86% of print sotries dealt with former mental patients, focused on violence of patients
Serious Mental Illnesses
- crimes
class of disorders with psychotic features (schizo, MDD) or other symptoms that have big affect on individuals interpersonal and vovational functions --Ppl with SMI typically commit only minor offenses
Munetz & Griffin Model
proposed a conceptual model: Sequential Intercept Model (SIM) to detail points at which mental health and social interventions could be used to support or supplement usual criminal justice process (exs: mental health courts, postrelease programs, pretrial diversion)
Mental Disorder vs. Mental Illness
- 2 underlying principles of MD
- a disorder of mind that is judged to interfere substantially with person’s ability to cope with life on daily basis. Deprives them of freedom of choice (although still have some decision making ability) Deviates from normal conduct and impedes functioning
- doesn’t imply (like illness) that person is sick, pitied, or even less responsible for actions. Although mental illness used in much literature, and law, book prefers disorder.
- Condition must have negative consequences and disfunction of some internal process
4 Categories of mental illnesses most assoc with crime
Schizophrenia, paranoid or delusional disorder, mood disorders, and antisocial personality disorder.
Schizophrenia Diagnostic Criteria (5)
At least two of symptoms must be manifested before diagnosis and signs of disturbance for at least six months
1. Delusions
2. Halluncinations
3. Disorganized speech
4. Disorganized behaior
5. Inapporpiate affect
Social interactions, self-care, occupational life must also show impairment prior to onset
Study of homicide schizophrenics
- how many violent?
- hallucinations(2)
- predictor of violence (2)
- 1/3rd were considered excessively violent;
- excessive violence most common in those with halluncinations and delusions rather than one or the other
found that halluncinations alone are rare at time of crime for homicide offenders
-Strongest predictors of excessive violence in schizo’s was offender’s own history of violence and coeffender at scene
5 subtypes of schizo
- schizophreniform
- Disorganized- show inapporpriate affect, incoherent thought patterns, strange mannerisms, complaints of nonexistent physical prob, social withdrawl
- Catatonic- Severe disturbances in muscualr and voluntary movement, periods of mutism, parrotlike repetition of work, grimicaing
- Paranoid- delusions and halluncinations (most freq in criminal behavior)
- Undifferentiated- psychotic symptoms that cannot be classifed into any category.
- Residual- Have had at least one episode of schizo and evidevne of some symptoms continueing such as blunted emotions but no other symptoms
- DSM identifies a 6th category schizophreniform disorder as a behavioral pattern that shows at least two indicators of delusions, halluncinations, disorganized speech, strange behavior, inapprop emotions. Temporary disorder that persists for more than month but less than 6
Delusional Disorder
- criteria
- types
- type most assoc w/ crime
- central feature
AKA paranoid disorders are characterized by prescence of one or more nonbizarre delusions that persist for at least one month (judgment btwn bizarre and non is most imp in deciding if schizo)
- DSM recongnizes seven types; persecutory type most assoc with criminal behavior
- central feature is the delusional system which most often includes persecutroy beliefs
Major Depressive Disorder
- criteria
- delinquency (2)
- symtoms include extreme depressed state that lasts for two or more week’s accomp by slowing down of mental and physical activity, gloom, worthlessness, thoughts of suicide.
- Research indicates depression maybe assoc with delinquincy espec in teen girls
- Study of 3,604 teens found support for theory that early depressive symtptoms lead to delinquency espec for girls
Antisocial Personality Disorder
- central feature
- criteria (2)
- Other criteria (7)
- prev
- prev in inmates %
- has a central feature of continuous behavior, which violates rights of others. Must be at least 18 and have history of some symptoms of conduct disorder before 15
- Before diagnosed with APD, must have pattern of disregard for others indicated by at least three of the following behavior patterns:
1. Failure to conform to social norms or law
2. Irritablity and unusal aggressivness
3. Consistent irresponsibility (poor work history)
4. Impulsive or failure to plan ahead (characteristic at all ages) (deficits in exec functioning)
5. Deceitfulness (lying, conning others)
6. Reckless diregard for others safety and self
7. Lack of remorse or guilt (indifferent, rationalization) - 3% of American male pop and 1% of females fit criteria
- Rates of inmates range from 30-50%
Adjudicative competence (2 - Court case
is ability to participate in court with two concepts:
- competence to proceed (understanding proceedings and abillty to help own attorney)
- decisional competence (ability to understand signif of decisions being made)
-In a U.S supreme court case (indiana vs. edwards) the court ruled that a unitary standard for deciding these two issues was inapropriate- just bc they are competent to stand trial does no mean they are competent to serve as own attorney or plead guilty
- Until 1970s evaluation?
- Jackson vs. Indiana
- typical procedure for evaluating competency required that defendants be confined within a mx security for length evaluation (60-90 days) folowing eval, granted a hearing; if found incompetent then automatically comitted to hospital for indefinitie period of time until competent
- case declared that indefinite confinment violated constituition. Specified if no progress made toward competence, then must release person or recomit under civil criminal statues
Seller vs. US 2003
court ruled that in a case that did not involve violence, courts must be wary of ordering medication agaisnt will (Supreme court said Sell should not have to take the drugs) however for more serious crimes, court has been less sympathetic refusing to hear appeal for involuntary medication
Study of competent and incompetent defendants
(differed on?)
- those with psychotic disorder(x) (x)
have compared defendants competent to stand trial to those found incompetent. They did not differ signif on demo variables but on clinical variables (incomp person more likely to be diagnosed with psychotic disorder)
-Pirelli found that those defendants with psychotic disorders about 8x more likely to be found incompetent that thos without; also those unemployed or prev hospitilized about twice as likely
Insanity vs. incompetency
- insanity refers to
- Insanity is a legal term not a psychiatric one
- Insanity refers to person’s state of mind at time of crime (John Hinckley & Yates)
Insanity Defense Act of 1984
- legistlative changes/basically is?
- (3) main changes
- clinicians
- estimate of insanity defenses
Since the Hickley acquittal (found NGRI) in 1982, 34 states made some kind of alteration to insanity statues and US congress passed Insanity Defense Act of 1984
- kept the Insanity defense in federal law but modified it. Made it more difficult. Changed Brawner rule (rule that has been most adhered to) to more of the M rule. Defendant cannot be held responsible if at time of acts, as result of illness, unable to aprecaiate nature and quality of wrongfulness. Mental disorder doesn’t consititue a defense
- In addition, new law changed Brawner rule in 3 ways:
1. Abolished irrestible impulse test (Volitional Pong-acceptance of the possibility that a defendant could not control his or her behavior to conform to the requirements of the law ) of the B rule
2. Modifed the cognitive requirement by replacing the phrase “lacks substantial capacity to appreciate” with unable to appreciate (tightens the requirement to a total lack of ability to understand wrongness)
3. Mental disease must be severe to emphasize that certain behavioral disorders (personality ones especially) do not qualify as a defense - Also, clinicians are not allowed to express opionion on whether person was insane. They may testify and report on evaluations with a diagnosis but not express opinion. (This is to emphasize that insanity is determined by court)
- Researchers estimate that insanity defesnes used in only 1% of all US felony criminal cases
Success of Insanity Defense
- 8 state study of NGRI %’s success rate (jury rate)
- 2 states (hi & low) %’s
- Cirincione and Jacobs mean of acquittals
- acquittals related to
- 3 disorders with higher rates of acquittals
- acquittals in US%
- demographics of successful NGRI’s
- when is NGRI more pleasing?
- 8 state study of 9,000 defendants who plead not guilt by insanity found 22-25% success rate; only 7% acquttals handed down by juries
- Other studies report 44% in Colorado and low of 2% in wyoming
- Cirincione and Jacobs found a mean of only 33.4 insanity acquittals per year across 35 states
- Acquittals seem to be realted to diagnosis given to defendant and on crime charged
- Found that defendants with diagnosis of psychotic disorder, affective disorders or mental retardation had higher rates of acquittal thatn thos with other disorders. - Diagnosis more than offenses seems to be critical factor Personality disorders were negatively correlated with finding of insanity
- In US acquitalls are harder to obtain from jurors than judges emphasizing neg attitudes America has towards insanity defense (96% of thoses found not guily by insanity in front of judge or bench trial)
- -Successful NGRIs compared to non are older, female, better educated and single and 15% had not themselves raised the insanity defense
- When possiblibty of captial/life punishment NGRI becomes more pleasing to defense
Supreme court case Foucha vs. Louisina 1992
-placed limits on hospital confinement of NGRI’s. Court ruled that they may not be held in hospital once no longer disorderd even if argued dangerous (Foucha had been in hospital for 4 yrs)
Insanity Standards
- 3 models
- 2 criteria
- diffs
- Clark vs Arizona
- Standards to determine insanity vary by state but generally all center on three models: M’Naghten Rule, Brawner Rule, or Durham Rule and all based on 2 criteria: irriationality and compulsion
1. If it can be established that a person was not in control of their mental processes (irrationality)
2. and or was not in control of behavior (compulsion) then have grounds for absolving person of some or all responbility - Jursidications differ on critera; some require both
- Clark v Arizona 2006 Court made it clear that states could determine own insanity standards and not establish a universal one
M’Naghten Rule
- History
- Rule
- Other rule
- 1842; formed after Daniel M was acquitted of killing a man he thought was prime minister. Applied a “wild beast” test to concluded he was irrational and sent to institution. However, many believed he knew his actions were wrong so law was changed to prevent injustice. Therefore the rule that bears his name is not the rule under which he was tried.
- In 1851 the M rule was adopted in fed and most state courts. Simple and states if person because of disorder did not know right from worng at time of act or did not know what they were doing was wrong not held responsible.
- Right and Wrong Test (M’Naghten rule) emphasized cognitive elements of: being aware and knowing what you are doing at time of act and knowing or realizing right from wrong in moral sense (rule recog no degree of incapacity) (either responsible or not)
Brawner Rule and American Law Institute Rule
- history
- states? criteria (2)
- Unlike M rule
- firs to
- Provison
- based on insanity rule suggest by Model Penal Code (MPC) which was proposed in 1962 by group of scholars assoc with American Law Inst.
- States that person not responsible for conduct if at time as a result of mental defect he lacks capactity to aprreciate criminality or to conform his condut to law.
Must be demonstrated that disease substantially and directly
1. Influenced emotional or mental processes or
2. Impaired ability to control behavior
-Unlike M rule, Brawner rule recognizes partial responsibility for criminal conduct and possiblity of irresistible impulses beyond control. - first to recog states of incapacity
Also excludes any criminal or anitsoical conduct (CP)
-Caveat Paragraph provision intended to disallow insantiy defense for criminal psychopahts who persistently violate law (APD’s cant use)
The Durham Rule
- History
- unlike M rule
- D rule does not
- Carter vs. US
- Initial reaction to D rule
“The Product Test” created in 1954 by same court that later rejected it for favor of brawner rule. Monte Durham had mental disorder and history of pety theft. He was acquitted bc his act was considered product of mental disease.
- While M rule focuses on knowing right from wrong, (mental element in crime) D assumes person cannot be held responsible if unlawful action is product of disease
- Nothing in D rule that relates direclty to persons mental judgement
- Rule later clarified in Carter v US which held that illness must not merely have entered into production of act but play a necessary role
- Some were intially attracted to simplicity of D but soon it became clear that mental illness defs were too vague and virtually any defendant could be excused once mental illness had been established
