Can defendants with mental retardation successfully fake their performance on a test of competence to stand trial?

The purpose of this study was to determine whether criminal defendants with mental retardation can feign poor performance on a test of competence to stand trial. Four groups of adjudicated criminal defendants were given a test of competence to stand trial. In the experimental condition, defendants with mental retardation (MR) and mentally typical defendants (non-MR) were given instructions to fake their performance on the test. In the control, MR defendants and non-MR defendants took the test under standard conditions. The results indicated that both the MR and non-MR fakers scored significantly lower than the MR and non-MR controls. There was no significant difference in the scores of the MR and non-MR fakers. The results suggest that defendants with mental retardation may be able to successfully fake their performance in certain circumstances. Implications of these findings are discussed.     

Hospitalization of criminal defendants for evaluation of competence to stand trial or for restoration of competence: clinical and legal issues

The clinical and legal literature abounds with articles dealing with competence to stand trial; while most agree that criminal defendants must be capable of defending themselves before the state can bring them to trial, a number of articles are quite critical of the procedures by which these concepts are operationalized, some even going so far as to suggest abolishing the requirement for competence altogether. One of the major problems leading to the criticisms is the unnecessary loss of liberty involved. Although the length of incarceration has decreased significantly since the 1970s, the majority of states still permit, or require, hospitalization for evaluation of competence, and even more so for treatment to restore competence.The author reviews case law and presents data from his survey of current state statutes and responses from state forensic mental health program directors, to demonstrate the rarity of outpatient treatment to restore competence. He argues that outpatient treatment for defendants who do not require hospitalization on clinical or public safety grounds should be available, on both clinical and legal grounds, and provides recommendations for establishing such programs in the community.     

Psycholegal Abilities and Restoration of Competence to Stand Trial

Criminal defendants adjudicated incompetent to stand trial are typically hospitalized for competence restoration in state institutions. Prolonged restoration hospitalizations involve civil rights concerns and increasing financial costs, and there remains interest in determining which individuals are likely to be successfully restored. We retrospectively reviewed hospital records of 455 male defendants admitted to a forensic treatment center for competence restoration in an effort to determine whether psychiatric diagnoses, demographic factors, or psycholegal abilities were predictive of successful or failed restoration. At varying stages of restoration efforts, psychotic disorder, mental retardation, and previous state hospitalization predicted unsuccessful restoration, while substance use and personality disorders were predictive of successful restoration. Psycholegal abilities were predictive of successful restoration and appeared to form a continuum, with basic behavior and outlook, factual legal understanding, and rational attorney assistance factors demonstrating progressively increased importance in successful restoration. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Ten Year Research Update (2001–2010): Evaluations for Competence to Stand Trial (Adjudicative Competence)

This article reviews and evaluates publications during 2001–2010 with relevance for assessments of competence to stand trial, referred to in this article as adjudicative competence. The review focuses specifically on articles that provide new concepts or data supported by research or case analyses. The studies are reviewed under the following headings: (i) systemic issues, (ii) conceptual guidelines for AC evaluations, (iii) AC assessment methods, (iv) empirical correlates of AC judgments and psycholegal abilities, (v) quality of AC evaluations and reports, (vi) interpretive issues, (vii) special populations (defendants who are elderly, defendants with intellectual disabilities), (viii) AC evaluations of juveniles, and (ix) treatment of incompetent defendants. Suggestions are offered for further research to advance the quality of clinical evaluations of adjudicative competence. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The competency of criminal defendants to refuse,for delusional reasons,a viable insanity defense recommended by counsel

This article addresses the issues of whether mentally ill defendants charged with serious crimes who refuse to plead a viable and counsel-recommended insanity defense for delusional reasons (but who are otherwise competent to stand trial) should be considered to be competent, or incompetent, to stand trial; whether such defendants should be allowed to represent themselves with a delusional defense; and whether an insanity defense may properly be imposed upon such defendants. Based on an analysis of relevant Supreme Court decisions and other relevant cases, it is concluded that such defendants should not be allowed to go forward with a delusional defense (at least until reasonable efforts to treat the defendants' delusions are made). It is also argued, however, that unless an insanity defense would be viable (as well as recommended by counsel) delusional defendants who are otherwise competent to stand trial should be permitted to go forward, and represent themselves, with the defense of their choosing.     

Five-year research update (1986-1990): Evaluations for competence to stand trial

This article reviews and evaluates publications during 1986–1990 with relevance for assessments of competence to stand trial. The review focuses specifically on articles that provide new concepts or data supported by research or case studies. The studies are reviewed under the following headings; (a) the systemic context of competence to stand trial (CST) evaluations, (b) conceptual definitions of competence and models for CST assessment, (c) research on CST assessment methods, (d) characteristics of incompetent defendants, (e) interpretation of CST evaluation data, (f) issues in CST assessment of special populations, and (g) treatment to restore competence. Suggestions are offered for further research to advance the quality of clinical evaluations for competence to stand trial.     

The role of competency to stand trial in mental health courts

Concerns have been raised in the literature about the competency to stand trial and competency to make treatment decisions of defendants referred to mental health courts. However, there is little information reported about the evaluation and prevalence of incompetence, characteristics of incompetent mental health court defendants, and disposition of mentally ill defendants too disturbed to be diverted from the criminal justice system through mental health courts. This study reports on the 85 potential mental health court defendants referred for trial competency evaluations during the first three years of operation of the Akron Ohio Mental Health Court. Of the 80 defendants who could be located for evaluation, 77.5% were found incompetent, and 53% of the incompetent defendants were not restored to competence even after an average of 49 days of treatment in a state psychiatric hospital. The implications of these findings in terms of the diversion potential of mental health courts for the severely mentally ill are discussed.     

Defense attorneys' concerns about the competence of adolescent defendants

Research indicates that a sizable proportion of adolescent defendants have difficulty understanding and participating in legal proceedings against them, and may be incompetent to stand trial. To examine attorneys' experience in defending adolescents with competence‐related difficulties, 214 juvenile attorneys were surveyed. Findings indicated that attorneys have doubts about the competence of approximately 10% of adolescent defendants, and that they find these cases particularly challenging to defend. Most attorneys appear to recognize that developmental factors may contribute to adolescents' competence‐related difficulties, and believe that the law should accept developmental immaturity as a basis for incompetence findings. In approximately half of the cases in which attorneys had doubts about competence, attorneys did not request a competence evaluation but instead made other efforts to address competence issues, such as by teaching adolescents about legal proceedings and further involving their parents. The implications of these findings are discussed. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Competency to stand trial: Legal and clinical issues

A fundamental principle of criminal law is the right of defendants to a fair trial. Courts have long recognized that an essential component of this fairness doctrine is the ability, or competency, of defendants to participate in their defense. Mental health professionals have been extensively involved in assisting the courts in the evaluation of competency to stand trial. Three aspects of competency to stand trial in criminal cases are reviewed: the legal criteria defining competency to stand trial, the clinical assessment of competency, and the treatment of defendants found incompetent to stand trial.     

Involuntary treatment and competence to proceed in the criminal process: capital and noncapital cases

Recent cases raise a series of questions regarding the involuntary administration of treatment intended to restore or maintain competence to proceed in the criminal process. As is often the case, these matters take on a special urgency in the context of capital punishment. The analysis presented in this paper suggests that the relevant interests that courts should consider in deciding whether to order the involuntary administration of treatment to restore or maintain competence converge to a greater degree than one might initially expect. When the applicable conception of medical interests is appropriately defined and the state's interest in protecting the integrity of the process is given appropriate weight, the legally protected state and individual interests converge to a substantial degree. Protecting both sets of interests may require a variety of procedures designed to avoid misguided interventions with the potential to undermine both sets of interests. Finally, this analysis provides an approach that allows the courts to grant appropriate weight to the professional ethics of those who perform evaluations and deliver treatment in these contexts.     

Competency to stand trial evaluations: A state-wide review of court-ordered reports

Competence to stand trial (CST) evaluations are a critical part of certain criminal proceedings, and competence-related evaluation and treatment are an increasing part of public mental health services. Whereas more research describes the defendants undergoing competence evaluations, less research has examined the actual reports detailing those competence evaluations. This study reviewed 3,644 court-ordered CST evaluation reports submitted by 126 evaluators in Virginia since Virginia initiated an oversight system allowing for comprehensive review. The base rate of incompetence opinions was 38.8%, but these rates varied significantly across evaluation type (initial versus post-restoration efforts) and evaluators (ranging from 9.1% to 76.8% incompetence rate). Results suggest generally strong compliance with state statutes guiding CST evaluations, but also highlight marked variability in forensic conclusions and reveal a few areas in which some reports fell short of statutory requirements and practice guidelines.     

Animal Rights and Animal Experiments: An Interest-Based Approach

This paper examines whether non-human animals have a moral right not to be experimented upon. It adopts a Razian conception of rights, whereby an individual possesses a right if an interest of that individual is sufficient to impose a duty on another. To ascertain whether animals have a right not to be experimented on, three interests are examined which might found such a right: the interest in not suffering, the interest in staying alive, and the interest in being free. It is argued that while the first two of these interests are sufficient to ground animal rights against being killed and made to suffer by experiments, the interest in freedom does not ground a general animal right not to be used in experimentation. Winner of the second annual Res Publica Postgraduate Essay Prize, 2006.     

Preadolescent adjudicative competence: methodological considerations and recommendations for practice standards

This article examines developmental and legal issues directed toward a downward age extension of forensic evaluation practice standards for preadolescent defendants whose competence is questioned. Existing research and practice standards were developed for cases involving adolescents and adults, but they lack sufficient application to evaluations of young children because of the ways in which legal parameters affect young children. We review practice implications of the legal role of "immaturity" for adjudicative competence, alterations of Dusky in some juvenile courts, and the role of parens patriae in competence hearings held in juvenile court. We examine competence abilities in a developmental framework. Examining practice standards is timely because adjudicative competence in preadolescent defendants has taken on recent significance. The last decade saw changes in the stringency of delinquency statutes, increased emphasis on adversarial approaches to juvenile proceedings, and a de-emphasis on rehabilitation and parens patriae protections. Statutory changes and increased referrals have heightened inquiry into the meaning of preadolescent adjudicative competence.     

Factors affecting jail detention of defendants adjudicated incompetent to proceed

The movement of defendants through the legal process who have been adjudicated incompetent to proceed is little studied, yet it is important. The purpose of this study was to provide empirical data regarding factors that affected the amount of time defendants adjudicated incompetent to proceed and ordered to undergo hospitalization remained in jail while awaiting transfer to a state hospital. Statewide data collected in Florida between July 2005 and June 2008 were used to determine the lengths of time incompetent defendants spent at certain stages in the legal process. The addition of forensic bed capacity following media attention and litigation resulted in a significant decrease in the amount of time defendants adjudicated incompetent to proceed waited in jail for transfer to a state hospital for treatment. The amount of time it took for completed commitment orders to be submitted to the state mental health authority by the Clerks of Court of each county accounted for a meaningful portion of days defendants spent in jail awaiting transfer to a state hospital, with considerable variation across counties with respect to waiting times. These findings reflect how various stakeholders can affect the amount of time defendants spend in jail while awaiting hospitalization. These issues are discussed in the context of controversy related to Florida's forensic mental health system, as well as issues related to the political process and funding of the state's mental health authority.     

The relationship between criminal charges, diagnoses, and psycholegal opinions among federal pretrial defendants

This study analyzed data from 1710 criminal defendants referred by federal courts throughout the United States. We examined 12 categories of criminal charges with respect to diagnosed psychopathology and opinions related to competence to stand trial (CST) and criminal responsibility (CR) at the time of the alleged offense. Overall, 18% of the present sample were found to be incompetent to stand trial, while 12% were found to be not criminally responsible or 'insane.' In this study, crimes were associated with rates of psychopathology and rates of opinions regarding CST and CR. The findings of this study suggest that individuals who are charged with different crimes have different mental states and psychopathology and are therefore found to have differential rates of competence and sanity.     

Is there a Moral Right to Vote?

The question raised in this paper is whether legal rights to vote are also moral rights to vote. The challenge to the justification of a moral right to vote is that it is not clear that the vote is instrumental to the preservation of some critical interest of the voter. Because a single vote has ‘no impact’ on electoral outcomes, the right to vote is unlikely to serve the interests of the individual. The account developed in this paper holds that moral voting rights can be justified once we acknowledge that voting by a sub-set of citizens is among the necessary preconditions for democratic institutions making a significant difference to their collective interests. The justification of a moral right to vote does not, then, apply to each individual citizen but only to a sub-set of them. In order to justify inclusive moral voting rights, the further consideration must be added that individuals have critical interests in public recognition of equal status. An inclusive moral right to vote accordingly depends on both collective interest in the outcomes of democratic institutions and on individual interest in equal recognition.     

Deciding the Fate of Others: The Cognitive Underpinnings of Racially Biased Juror Decision Making

In criminal law, jurors are supposed to ignore defendant race when considering factual matters of culpability. However, when judging the merits of a criminal case, jurors’ ability (or inability) to avoid bias may affect verdicts. Fact-based decision making expend cognitive resources, while heuristic-based decisions (e.g., using criminal stereotypes) conserve resources. Here, we investigated whether differences in cognitive resources and prejudice attitudes about Blacks influenced trial outcomes. We tested the impact of working memory capacity (WMC), cognitive load, prejudice, and target race (Black, White) on penalties ascribed to fictional criminal defendants in ambiguous-fact cases. Results showed that when “loaded,” prejudiced-low-WMC persons supported guilty verdicts with higher confidence more often for Black than White defendants. Conversely, regardless of WMC or prejudice attitude, participants penalized White defendants more often when not loaded. We suggest that cognitive resources and prejudice attitude influence fact-based decisions. Links to juror judgments and potential trial outcomes are discussed.     

The question of sanity restoration in jail

Severe mental illness, especially psychotic disorders that are worsening, acute or complicated, normally require intensive psychiatric care and treatment that is most appropriately provided in a mental hospital. For criminal defendants, transfer to a forensic security hospital has traditionally been the means of achieving hospital care for mentally disordered defendants who have been found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity. In recent years, with the shortage of intermediate and long-term hospital beds in the United States, including forensic security hospital beds, jail-based competency restoration programs are being established, seemingly obviating hospital transfer. Potential advantages of and concerns about jail-based, as opposed to hospital-based, competency restoration programs are discussed in the literature. If defendants with severe mental illness traditionally treated in a forensic security hospital for competency restoration are now treated for competency restoration in jail, it is not inconceivable that insanity acquittees could one day be treated in jail for sanity restoration. With the premise that it is better to consider the potential consequences before this becomes a serious proposal and is implemented, this analysis examine the advantages and concerns that have been put forth for jail-based competence restoration programs as they may or may not apply to jail-based sanity restoration programs. Substantial commonality is recognized, but also some differences, as well as reason for skepticism of the purported virtues of either alternative to care and treatment in forensic security hospitals.