Representation by counsel: Right or obligation?

Since the Supreme Court's decision in Faretta v. California (1975), courts have generally permitted defendants to represent themselves, as long as they are competent to do so. The problem lies in the definition of competency to waive counsel, which has been vaguely defined by the courts. Little is known about the frequency of, or reasons for, attempts to waive counsel, about the process of forensic evaluation of such competency, and about the success of such attempts. The authors briefly review the case law on competency to waive representation, report on a longitudinal prospective study of these issues in a population of defendants referred to an inpatient forensic facility for evaluation of all types of competency related to their criminal prosecutions, and discuss the significance of the issue for forensic clinicians. A key question for courts, lawyers, and clinicians is whether a competency evaluation can be invoked to overcome a defendant's constitutional rights to self-representation and bail.     

A PRESCRIPTION FOR GENERATING A NEW PARADIGM IN THE CONTEXT OF SCIENCE AND THEOLOGY

Abstract. Many centers are now active in the study of the interaction between science on the one hand and theology on the other. Suggestions are made as to how such study might be furthered. The central proposal in this paper is based on the author's experience in founding and, over many years, operating the Neurosciences Research Program (NRP). The "faculty" of this group were highly competent in many fields of science and were able to deal with many of the major issues. It is here further suggested that if an NRP-like organization were established, capable of productively interacting with both science and theology, it might well generate new concepts and possibly a new paradigm in this context.     

PARADIGMS OF BELIEF, THEORY AND METATHEORY

Abstract. My account of the recent turnabout in the treatment of mental states in science and its basis in a modified concept of causal determinism and my claim that this opens the way for beliefs and values consistent with science are here reaffirmed in response to perceived weaknesses and "inherent incompleteness." Contested issues are reviewed to better clarify the main thesis. An inherent weakness in respect to deep spiritual needs is recognized and tentative remedial measures explored.     

The effect of gender and time-of-day on time perception and mental workload

Two experiments are reported which investigated how subject gender and time-of-day influenced the estimation of duration and the perception of task-related mental workload. In the first experiment, 24 subjects performed a filled time-estimation task in a constant blacked-out, noise-reduced environment at 0800h, 1200h, 1600h, and 2000h, respectively. In the second experiment, 12 different subjects performed an unfilled time estimation task in similar conditions at 0900h, 1400h, and 1900h. At the termination of all experimental sessions, participants completed the NASA Task Load Index workload assessment questionnaire as a measure of perceived mental workload. Results indicated that physiological response, reflected in body temperature change, followed an expected pattern of sequential increase with time-of-day. However, estimates of duration and the perception of mental workload showed no significant effects for time-of-day. In each of the experiments there were significant differences in time estimation and mental workload response contingent on the gender of the participant. These results are interpreted in light of the previous positive findings for circadian fluctuation in performance efficiency and the equivocal findings of a gender difference in time estimation. A unifying account of these collective results is given based on gender by time-of-day interactional effects. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society, Anaheim, CA, October, 1988.     

Components of analogical reasoning in a mildly head injured population

This study sought to investigate the effects of mild head injury on a particular type of cognitive ability, verbal analogical reasoning. The performance of 19 individuals with head injuries was compared to a group of 30 control subjects matched for age, education, and gender on 100 verbal analogies. Solution times and error rates were modeled. Unstandardized regression weights for individual subjects were correlated with subjects’ performance on a number of standardized ability tests. Results showed that compared to the control subjects, the head injured subjects: (a) were significantly slower to solve the analogies, and were particularly slow to perform certain processes: encoding/inference and comparison; (b) tended to show greater variability in performance; and (c) had data that had a poorer componential model fit. The data suggest that analogical reasoning is affected by a head injury, and that certain information processes may be responsible for performance deficits.     

Jury selection in two countries: a psychological perspective

A comparative survey of jury selection practices in Britain and the United States indicates that the two countries differ along a number of dimensions, including the emphasis on the jury selection process in the trial, the amount and type of information available about prospective jurors, and the frequency with which trial lawyers alter the composition of the jury. The probable impact of these differences is analysed by considering the importance of jury composition in determining a jury’s verdict, the effectiveness of lawyers in exercising their challenges, and broader effects of jury selection procedures in the two countries.     

The application of relative deprivation theory to justice perception of preferential selection

This study attempted to apply the relative deprivation theory to preferential selection research. Two questions were addressed in this context: First, does preferential selection cause feelings of injustice or deprivation? and, second, can the magnitude of such feelings of injustice be predicted? A questionnaire was designed to assess fairness perceptions of all types of selection outcomes: preferential selection; together with selection involving discrimination against minorities and selections without either forms of discrimination. Results showed that preferential selection caused feelings of injustice. The level of felt injustice associated with preferential selection was identical to that due to discrimination against minorities. Further, the magnitude of felt injustice due to preferential selection could be predicted by the size of the discrepancy in “performance-relevant merits” between the selected minority candidate and the unsuccessful majority candidate. The study also compared effects of the “self-other” comparison process, used in previous relative deprivation research, and a “other-other” comparison process on justice perception. Implications of the results for the application of relative deprivation theory to preferential selection research were discussed.