Criminal Justice Flashcards

Question

MISSION-Criminal Justice (see Missionmodel.org; Pinals et al. 2014; Smelson et al. 2014)

Answer 1

MISSION-Criminal Justice (see Missionmodel.org; Pinals et al. 2014; Smelson et al. 2014), which incorporates several evidence-based practices using a peer and case management team to provide manualized community-based support and linkage interventions for those individuals with co-occurring disorders who are in the criminal justice system.

Answer 2

Sequential Intercept Model (SIM; see Figure 26.1). This framework depicts the criminal justice system along a continuum and describes how it can offer several potential points of interception at which individuals with serious mental illness could be identified and then linked to community services in lieu of incarceration.

Answer 3

Dusky v. United States (1960), which inquires “whether the defendant has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding—and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.” While Dusky did not require that mental illness be the basis for incompetence, the subsequently adopted federal Insanity Defense Reform Act (1984) required a present mental disease/defect as the cause of incompetence.

Answer 4

State and federal standards indicate that defendants are incompetent to stand trial if their mental illness makes them (1) unable to understand the nature and objectives of the proceedings and/or (2) unable to assist in their defense.

Answer 5

1960 landmark case that defined competency to stand trial. A man with schizophrenia was convicted in a US District Court. This ruling was appealed to the US Supreme Court, which reversed the original decision and enunciated the basis of the test for competency to stand trial: "…it is not enough for the district judge to find that ‘the defendant [is] oriented to time and place and [has] some recollection of events,’ but that the ‘test must be whether he has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding—and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him

Answer 6

The standard of proof required for incompetency to stand trial was established in the landmark 1996 US Supreme Court case Cooper v Oklahoma.4 Oklahoma required the standard for proving incompetence to stand trial to be “clear and convincing evidence,” but the US Supreme Court reversed this decision and decided that “a preponderance of the evidence” is sufficient, thus making it easier for defendants to prove their incompetence to stand trial:

Answer 7

A 2003 case, Sell v United States,5 established 4 factors that must be present for someone to be treated against his or her will. “A court must find that… (1) important governmental interests are at stake… (2) administration of the drugs is substantially likely to render the defendant competent to stand trial” and “…is substantially unlikely to have side effects that will interfere significantly with the defendant’s ability to assist counsel in conducting a trial defense… (3) alternative, less intrusive treatments are unlikely to achieve substantially the same results… (4) administration of the drugs is medically appropriate, ie, in the patient’s best medical interest in light of his medical condition.”5pp181–182

Answer 8

Jackson v Indiana,6 a deaf, mute, and mentally retarded man who was illiterate and could not otherwise communicate was charged with petty crimes. He was found to be incompetent to stand trial and was committed to a psychiatric hospital until his competency was restored. Jackson’s counsel argued that the defendant would never be considered competent to stand trial and that even without being convicted of a crime, indefinite commitment to a psychiatric hospital was tantamount to a “life sentence,” thereby violating his right to due process and equal protection, as well as subjecting him to cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court held that: “… due process requires that the nature and duration of commitment bear some reasonable relation to the purpose for which the individual is committed…[and that person] cannot be held more than the reasonable period of time necessary to determine whether there is a substantial probability that he will attain that capacity in the foreseeable future.”6p738

Answer 9

Under The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984, the burden of proof that the defendant was not criminally responsible at the time of the offense was placed onto the defendant (as with the burden of proof of incompetency) and the standard of proof became “clear and convincing evidence.” Even if someone is found competent to stand trial, the defendant may still enter a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity because this plea refers to his or her mental state at the time of the crime.10 Any combination of competency and criminal responsibility can occur, including: competent to stand trial and then found not guilty by reason of insanity competent to stand trial and then found guilty of the crime incompetent to stand trial, treated and restored to competency, and then found guilty (or found not guilty by reason of insanity) incompetent to stand trial, treated and restored to competency, and then found not guilty by reason of insanity incompetent to stand trial, unrestored to competency by treatment, and then subject to civil commitment

Answer 10

Constitutional requirements for standing trial: ability to consult with lawyer in reasonable and rational manner; rational and factual understanding of proceedings; individuals with intellectual disabilities, schizophrenia, or active psychosis may still be found competent if their disorders do not interfere with these requirements

Answer 11

Sell v US (2003): defendant displayed irrational behavior after bail revoked; Sell diagnosed with delusional disorder and declared incompetent during subsequent hospitalization, but he refused medication; Supreme Court decided medication could be given against his objections, but only under specific circumstances; circumstantial requirements — medications must be likely to restore competence, unlikely to create side effects that might interfere with competence (especially in assisting counsel [eg, sedation with chlorpromazine (Ormazine, Thorazine]), and medically appropriate

Answer 12

–Adds the requirement that the defendant must be able to “assist in preparing his defense” –Goes beyond “consulting with Counsel”

Answer 13

U.S. Supreme Court, 1972 •Theon Jackson: MR, deaf, mute •Charged with two robberies of $9 total •Found IST and committed to Indiana DMH until “sane” •Jackson’s lawyer appealed arguing under –14th Amendment –8th Amendment Jackson v. Indiana (1972) •USSC ruled in favor of Jackson •Length of commitment must not exceed time required to see if there is a substantial probability def is restorable in the foreseeable future •If restoration not possible commitment must be via civil commitment U.S. Supreme Court, 1972 •Theon Jackson: MR, deaf, mute •Charged with two robberies of $9 total •Found IST and committed to Indiana DMH until “sane” •Jackson’s lawyer appealed arguing under –14th Amendment –8th Amendment •USSC ruled in favor of Jackson •Length of commitment must not exceed time required to see if there is a substantial probability def is restorable in the foreseeable future •If restoration not possible commitment must be via civil commitment

Answer 14

Riggins v. Nevada (U.S. Supreme Court, 1992) •Involuntary administration of psychotropic medication in a pretrial defendant rejected •Issues for consideration in future cases –Medical appropriateness –No less intrusive alternative –Essential for the safety of defendant and others •Involuntary medication for restoration not decided, but left as a possibility

Answer 15

. Supreme Court, 2003 •Medication to restore CST can be administered involuntarily under limited, “rare”, circumstances •Alternative grounds to forcible medication must be tried first * Important government interest is at stake (e.g., confinement for treatment, fairness of the trial vs. timeliness of prosecution) * Medication will substantially further those interests, and substantially unlikely to have side effects that will interfere significantly * Involuntary medication is necessary to further those interests and alternative, less intrusive treatments are unlikely to achieve substantially the same results. * Medication is appropriate

Answer 16

Assessment of a defendant's Competence to stand trial is the most common forensic evaluation performed in the United States. Defense attorneys have doubts about defendants’ competency in 10%–15% of cases.[1,2] An estimated 60,000 defendants are referred for pretrial assessment of competency to stand trial each year.[3]

Answer 17

Dusky v. United States, set forth the standard to be used in federal courts. The Court ruled “the test must be whether the defendant has sufficient present ability to consult with his attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and a rational as well as factual understanding of proceedings against him

Answer 18

Drope v. Missouri, the Court held that competency was “so fundamental to an adversary system of justice.” Moreover, it stated, “It has long been accepted that a person whose mental condition is such that he lacks the capacity to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, to consult with counsel, and to assist in preparing his defense may not be subjected to a trial.”

Answer 19

Godinez v. Moran.[7] The Court held that decisional competency, in this case the competency to plead guilty, was to be considered as part of the previously articulated Dusky test. Before this ruling, the lower courts in the United States had been divided on the issue of whether decisions, such as pleading guilty, required a higher level of competency (see 3, at page 48)

Answer 20

Competency to assist counsel Understanding of criminal charges Understanding of the implications of being a defendant Understanding of the adversarial nature of the proceedings Understanding of the role of defense counsel, prosecutor, judge, and jury Ability to work with attorney and relate pertinent information.

Answer 21

wherein the court concluded that “the test must be whether he has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding—and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him