Criminal Justice

Question 1

What are characteristics of sex offenders

Answer 1

Study of sex offenders (Abel, 1987): found high rate of offenses and high number of victims; multiple types of paraphilias, physical coercion, and other offenses frequently found; offenders had little sense of need for treatment; age of onset 10 to 20 y

Question 2

What is most common pars Phil is

Answer 2

Epidemiology: Templeman and Stinnett (1991) — studied 60 male undergraduate students; voyeurism identified as most common type of paraphilia (42%), followed by frottage, telephone calls, and coercive sexual activity;

Question 3

What is most common paraphilia among treatment seekers

Answer 3

American Psychological Association (APA) Task Force report (1999) — among treatment seekers, child molestation most common paraphilia; number of victims — greatest number seen with exhibitionism, followed by frottage

Question 4

What paraphilia has highest crossing rate

Answer 4

Crossing: ie, having >1 type of paraphilic interest; increases risk for recidivism; highest crossing rate seen with bestiality, followed by public masturbation, male incest pedophilia, fetishism, and masochism

Question 5

Characteristics of Female sex offenders:

Answer 5

Female sex offenders: 1 in 5 abuses committed by female perpetrator; in half of cases, victim also female; in ≈30% of cases, male accomplice involved in offense; female offenders with male accomplice more likely to have multiple victims, both male and female victims, be related to some victims, and have offenses unrelated to sex

Question 6

What is the most prevalent internet offense

Answer 6

Internet offenders: possession of child pornography (via downloading) accounts for majority of referrals for criminal investigation of internet offense;

Question 7

What are 4 types of internet offenses

Answer 7

4 general types of offenses include trading child pornography, using internet to network with others interested in child pornography, grooming children, and traveling to meet children who have been groomed for molestation; relationship to pedophilia

Question 8

What is strongest predictor of pedophhilia

Answer 8

by Seto (2010) using phallometry found possession of child pornography to be stronger diagnostic indicator of pedophilia than actual contact offense against child;

Question 9

What is strongest predictor of pedophilia

Answer 9

2015 study found mixed offenders (those who downloaded child pornography and had contact offenses against children) more strongly pedophilic than offenders who engaged in either activity alone

Question 10

Illinois v Allen (1986)

Answer 10

Illinois v Allen (1986): Allen charged with deviant sexual assault and committed to treatment as psychotic and “sexually dangerous person” under Illinois MDSO law; Allen protested that required psychiatric evaluation violated his Fifth Amendment rights (ie, information that incriminated him obtained through evaluation); Supreme Court ruled that, because proceedings civil rather than criminal, Fifth Amendment not violated

Question 11

Specht v Patterson (1967)

Answer 11

Specht v Patterson (1967) — court found that sentencing Specht to indefinite commitment to psychiatric facility following psychiatric evaluation alone violated his 14th Amendment rights (right to due process); trends — legislation modified such that treatment voluntary option for offender; psychiatry began to reject concept of psychopathy

Question 12

Mentally Disordered Sex Offender Statutes (MDSO)

Answer 12

: allowed individuals charged with sexual offenses to be confined to secure residential treatment program, instead of prison, for indeterminate period

Question 13

sexual psychopath legislation

Answer 13

“sexual psychopath legislation” — prescribed combination of punishment and treatment for offenders, which made indeterminate sentencing (wherein, eg, treatment team, parole board, decides whether offender ready for release) possible; based on assumption that aberrant sexual behavior has basis in (treatable) mental illness

Question 14

Community Protection Act of 1990:

Answer 14

Community Protection Act of 1990: first SVP law (passed in state of Washington); triggered by repeat offense by sex offender shortly after his release; civil commitment scheme for sex offenders; added personality disorder as criterion; treatment of offenders follows period of incarceration, rather than serving as substitute; recent history of violent act not required for sentencing

Question 15

Pedofiles

Answer 15

Pedophiles: majority heterosexual; typically molest children known to them; most victims girls; offenses against girls more likely to be nontouching (eg, exhibitionism), while boys more likely to be victims of touching offense

Question 16

Clerics and pedofilia

Answer 16

Clerics: most offenses homosexual; leverage authority to groom and abuse victims; predominance of male victims may reflect greater access to children of this sex

Question 17

Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) laws: 4 elements —

Answer 17

Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) laws: 4 elements — history of violent sexual conduct; diagnosis of mental disorder; risk for future harmful sexual conduct; mental disorder creates risk for harmful conduct in future; common legal challenges — violation of right to due process; equal protection provided under existing civil laws; double jeopardy; ex post facto (receiving additional punishment after serving sentence

Question 18

Community Protection Act of 1990:

Answer 18

Community Protection Act of 1990: first SVP law (passed in state of Washington); triggered by repeat offense by sex offender shortly after his release; civil commitment scheme for sex offenders; added personality disorder as criterion; treatment of offenders follows period of incarceration, rather than serving as substitute; recent history of violent act not required for sentencing

Question 19

Subsequent US Supreme Court rulings: Kansas v Hendricks — (serial sex offender)

Answer 19

Subsequent US Supreme Court rulings: Kansas v Hendricks — (serial sex offender) challenged commitment on multiple counts (double jeopardy, violation of due process, and ex post facto); Kansas Supreme Court supported challenge and invalidated Act on grounds that civil commitment requires mental illness, not personality disorder or mental abnormality; appeal to US Supreme Court in 1997 — resulted in ruling that cited Act as civil rather than criminal; as such, double jeopardy and ex post facto do not apply, and right to due process not violated; Court stated that lack of treatment does not constitute punishment;

Question 20

Kansas v Crane (2002)

Answer 20

Kansas v Crane (2002) — US Supreme Court ruled that complete lack of volitional control not required for commitment

Question 21

ification: Wetterling Act of

Answer 21

ification: Wetterling Act of 1994 — requires registration of sex offenders for 10 yr or life, distribution of registries to law enforcement, and determination by county of whether offender meets criteri

Question 22

Megan’s Law of 1996

Answer 22

Megan’s Law of 1996 — enacted in New Jersey following murder of Megan Kanka; mandates community notification of sex offenders’ presence; federal version of law requires release of registration information; consequences of registration — to avoid identification, offenders fail to register, miss treatment, and become more likely to relapse; registration may also lead to identification of victim; unsuccessful challenges to registration — US Supreme Court ruled that proof of dangerousness of sex offender not required, and that requirement can be applied retroactively

Question 23

Adam Walsh Child Protection Act of 2006

Answer 23

Adam Walsh Child Protection Act of 2006: expands sex offender policies by enhancing penalties, expanding investigations (of, eg, possession of child pornography), creating uniform interstate offender registry, and mandating registration prior to release from prison; sex offender registration act applies retroactively; leaving state prior to registration deemed criminal offense; juvenile offenders ≥14 yr of age required to register

Question 24

United States v Comstock (2010)

Answer 24

United States v Comstock (2010) — Comstock pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography and spent 37 mo in prison; later, Comstock involuntarily civilly committed to federal facility as sexually dangerous; Supreme Court ruled that federal government can commit dangerous persons to protect community

Question 25

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

Answer 25

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.

Question 26

Sequential Intercept Model (SIM; see Figure 26.1).

Answer 26

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.

Question 27

Dusky v. United States (1960),

Answer 27

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.

Question 28

Dusky standard.

Answer 28

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.

Question 29

Dusky v The United States2 is a

Answer 29

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

Question 30

Cooper v Oklahoma.

Answer 30

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:

Question 31

Sell v United States

Answer 31

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

Question 32

JACKSON v Indiana

Answer 32

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

Question 33

Insanity defense act of 1984

Answer 33

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

Question 34

Constitutional requirements for standing trial

Answer 34

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

Question 35

Sell v US (2003)

Answer 35

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

Question 36

•Drope v. Missouri (420 U.S. 162 (1975))

Answer 36

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

Question 37

Jackson v. Indiana (1972)

Answer 37

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

Question 38

Riggings v Nevada

Answer 38

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

Question 39

Sell v us

Answer 39

. 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

Question 40

How many referred for assessment of competence to stand trial each year

Answer 40

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]

Question 41

Dusky test

Answer 41

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

Question 42

Drops v Missouri

Answer 42

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.”

Question 43

Godinez v Moran

Answer 43

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)

Question 44

Competence to assist counsel

Answer 44

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.

Question 45

Dusky v. United States

Answer 45

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