Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The role of Forensic psychologist in court
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The role of Forensic psychologist in court
The Supreme Court of the United States interpretation of the Sixth and a Fourteenth amendment is that defendants, who do not fit the legal description of competence to stand trial, should not be tried while they are in such a condition. Competency to stand trial refers to a person being able to participate as well as assist in his or her own defense. It has to be determined inline with the legal definition given by the laws before an individual can stand trial. The Supreme Court set a specific standard when determining competency to stand trial. The specific standard known as The Dusky Standards, which states that, a person must have sufficient ability to communicate with his or her attorney with a reasonable and rational understanding of the proceedings against him or her. These standards came to be after a mentally ill man named Milton Dusky kidnapped a fifteen year old girl named Alison McQuery, and took her over state lines with two boys she knew which ultimately led to her rape by the two boys (Dusky,1960). There are considerations that are made with respect to the statutes governing a Jurisdiction, and the criteria under law for the particular case. The adjudicative competence of the defendant has to be exhausted in the quest seeking to determine whether he or she is competent to stand trial. This refers not only to the defendant’s ability to take part in the procedures of the courtroom, but also for the other related procedures during the prosecution. All data must be taken into account when determining if someone is competent to stand trial. This data is not from the defendant in question, but rather from other parties who will help give the court an insight into him or her. They include reports from psychiatrists and othe...
... middle of paper ...
...e many people who may have a mental disability, that does not necessarily mean they are not competent for trial as long as they are capable of understanding the charges against them, and are able to effectively assist in their own defense. If a person can effectively and rationally understand the case against them, who the main players in the court are, and can assist in their own defense then they do not qualify to be found not competent to stand trial. Thus, the legal standard for competency to stand trial is very specific.
References
Costanzo, M., & Krauss, D. (2012). Forensic and legal psychology: Psychological science applied to law. New York, NY: Worth Publishers.
Godiner v. Moran. (1993). Supreme Court of the United States.
United States v. Sell, 343 F.3d 950, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 26859 (8th Cir., Sept. 2, 2003)
Defining and Assessing Competency to Stand Trial. (2004, February 23). Criminal Forensics Competency. Retrieved March 10, 2014, from http://forensicpsychiatry.stanford.edu/Files/Criminal%20Forensics/Competency.2.pdf
"Schenck v. United States. Baer v. Same.." LII. Cornell University Law school, n.d. Web. 6 Jan. 2014. .
Therefore, a defendant, the court or the attorney general can order a hearing on motion. Before the date of the hearing of the case, the court may order a psychological or psychiatric evaluation of the defendant. Pursuant to the provisions of section 4247, psychologists or psychiatrists report the findings to the court. The court has the permission to request a deadline for the evaluation so that it can insure the promptness of the examination. The court can also request the experts who carried out the evaluation, to specify observations made of the defendant, the type of examination carried out and the opinion of the experts on the competency
One landmark case in regards to competency to stand trial (CST) is the Supreme Court case of Dusky v. U.S. (1960). This case established the minimum standard for competency. Milton Dusky was a man charged with assisting in a kidnapping and rape of an underage female. Even though he suffered from schizophrenia he was found competent to stand trial and was convicted and sentenced to 45 years. There was a petition to reverse his conviction on the grounds that he was not, in fact, competent to stand trial. The courts granted a retrial which resulted in his sentenced being reduced to 20 years.
Competency to stand Trial: Refers to the ability or inability of a person to stand trial, and the inability could be due to an issue preventing them from being able to participate in their defense. If a person is considered incompetent, it could be for many reasons, for instance a mental or physical disorder as well as an intellectual disability.
Severence, L., Goodman, J., & Loftus, E. (1992). Inferring the criminal mind: Toward a bridge between legal doctrine and psychological understanding. Journal Of Criminal Justice, 20. 107-120.
Individuals who exhibit cognitive impairment that limits or otherwise compromises their ability to understand consequence and make decisions and/or control their actions in accordance due to physical illness, disease, or disability at the time of legal offense cannot be reasonably held accountable for their actions, nor should they be legally judged by the same criteria as those criteria regarding mentally healthy individuals. A pardon or remission should be granted by the court, the affected individual should receive prompt, appropriate medical and psychological treatment, and further reprimand should be reserved for cases of repeat offense.
Greenfield, D. (2007). Introduction to forensic psychology. issues and controversies in crime and justice. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 35(2), 201-201-204,105-106.
These cases typically have bizarre things happening in them as well, that make them so fascinating to the public. There are many controversies surrounding the defense, some people argue it is misused, that people may fake insanity to get an acquittal or less severe conviction (Martin, 1998). However, in a 1979 sample of 1000 felony cases, less than five pleaded insanity, and no more than one was successful; the study found that the public overestimated the use of the insanity defense by 98% (Dafary-Kapur, 2010). The study also found that the public believes 25.6% of insanity acquittees are released right away without any conditions, or court mandated requirements. Realistically the number of insanity defendants that are released unconditionally is 1% (Dafary-Kapur, 2010). There are a lot of misconceptions about sentencing of those who plea insanity, or the punishment those people receive. This stems from the media and false information about cases where the insanity defense is used, or the lack of knowledge people have regarding mental illness. Since the vast majority of these cases host episodes of strange erratic behaviour people tend to think anyone who pleas insanity has more than just a mental illness. Typically, these people have to undergo psychiatric evaluations to see what is
United States, 362, U.S. 402 (1960). The significance of this case seemed glaring to me when compared to the other cases. This case set the standard for determining competency to stand trial, it is even referred to as the “Dusky standard.” The test for mental competence occurs pretrial. In order to be deemed mentally competent enough to stand trial, the defendant must be able to understand the proceedings against him/her. The defendant must also be able to assist in preparing his/her defense by (coherently) consulting with his/her appointed legal counsel/representation. It is important to note that orientation to time and place are insufficient in serving as sole determinants of mental competency for trial. Once again, the competency test is different from the insanity defense. A defendant’s mental competency during a trial is an extremely important factor. It seems to me that without determining competency (if the defendant’s competency is at all in question) the validity of the criminal proceedings, the trial itself, and the ruling/outcome would be invalid. It is illogical to go ahead and convict someone who is unable to understanding what is going on during a
Gary B. Melton, John Petrila, Norman G. Poythress, Psychological Evaluations for the Court: A Handbook for Mental Health Professionals and Lawyers, Guilford Publications, 3rd edition 2007
For over three decades, competency to stand trial is one of the leading issues studied in forensic psychology. There are an estimated 25,000 people evaluated for competency in the United States each year (Cruise, Keith R., & Rogers, Richard, 1998). In a clinical sense, the
... The source of the defendant’s mental abnormality is the greatest point of distinction between all of the defendants. Whether the abnormality is internal, external or a diagnosed medical condition will play a significant role in which defence can be used. As defences, they are all used for a similar reason, and that is to eliminate or reduce liability for criminal offences.
Hoge (2016) enlightens that, a defendant is termed to have questionable competency if either the court or the prosecutor raises concern where the defendant seems to be suffering from mental illness. Besides, in relation to the pre-stated, Hoge(2016) further enlightens that it is mandatory for the defendant not only to be able to particularly communicate with their attorney but also understand charges against them. Therefore, in agreement with Hoge (2016) where the defendant has questionable competency hence meaning that the defendant is suffering from a mental illness, the defendant will, in turn, lack the capability to understand charges against him or her. As such, the court, therefore, should not hold the defendant to the standard sentencing guidelines (Hoge,
It has long been found necessary that a defendant be able to assist, understand and participate in the legal process. Putting on trial those who are so impaired that they cannot aid in their defense or are unaware of the nature and purpose of the proceedings against them is considered to challenge both the worth of the legal process and notions about fairness. An underlying mental disorder can hinder a defendant in challenging charges made against him or providing important facts about their case. In Dusky V United States (1960) the Supereme Court ruled that defendants must possess “sufficient present ability to consult with his/her lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational undetstanding (and have a) rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him”. The words “sufficient” ability and “reasonable” understanding are reffering to the defendants capacities, which do not necessarily have to be flawless. Reference to “present” ability makes evident that we should only take into consideration the abilities of the defendant at the present time and during the future of the trial. A simple lack of knowledge of legal processes does not render somebody incompetent to stand trial. However, more then just the understanding of legal processes is necessary, a defendant must have the ability to appreciate and consider the facts of the case. Competence is ultimately decided by the judge, a mental health professional will however state their professional opinion that the judge will then take into consideration. Those who are found not competent to stand trial are commited to a mental institution until they regain competence. There are some instances where it is possible to involuntarily medicate a person if it will make ...