The differential impact of deinstitutionalization on white and nonwhite defendants found incompetent to stand trial

Previous studies have reported that state mental hospital deinstitutionalization has resulted in the processing of the mentally ill through the criminal justice system. Using pre- and postdeinstitutionalization samples of defendants found incompetent to stand trial (IST) selected from three states, this study examines changes in the mental health and arrest histories of white and nonwhite ISTs. These data reveal a significant increase in the number of nonwhite ISTs. Also, after deinstitutionalization, nonwhite ISTs had significantly more prior arrests and hospitalizations than white ISTs. There were, however, no differences in the offenses for which whites and nonwhites were arrested.     

Examining the use of the M-FAST with criminal defendants incompetent to stand trial

The Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (M-FAST) was developed to provide evaluators with a brief, reliable, and valid screen for malingered mental illness. This study examined the initial validity of the M-FAST in a sample of 50 criminal defendants found incompetent to stand trial because of a mental illness. The M-FAST total score and items were compared with the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS) and the fake-bad indicators of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2). Results indicated good evidence of construct and criterion validity, demonstrated by t tests, receiver operating characteristics analysis, and high correlations between the M-FAST, SIRS, and the fake-bad indices on the MMPI-2. Tentative cut scores for the M-FAST total score and scales were examined and demonstrated high utility with the sample of criminal defendants incompetent to stand trial.     

The processing and disposition of incompetent mentally ill offenders

Pretrial hospitalization of mentally ill offenders has been increasing in recent years and a number of abuses have been noted with respect to competency to stand trial. This is a report on 431 male felony defendants who were found incompetent to stand trial, hospitalized, and returned to court for a final disposition. Approximately one-half of those brought back to the court gained release to the community, with one-half continuing to be held in a hospital or a prison, and with 70% continuing in treatment in one setting or another. Disposition was significantly related to race, criminal history, severity of charges, and the recommendations of mental health professionals. Offenders were found to have spent unnecessarily long periods of time in jail and in the hospital awaiting court processing, raising questions about the fairness and efficiency of current procedures.     

Insanity plea: Relationship to victim and defendents

Conclusion The results of this analogue study clearly indicate that subjects' attitudes toward defendants, as measured by the type of disposition selected are influenced by their relationship to either the victim or the defendant with the most liberal alternatives occurring when the defendant is a relative and the most harsh alternatives chose when the victim of the crime is a relative. Although the present study was concermed with the insanity plea, it seems probables that similar findings might also transpire when other controversial matters in the criminal justice system as investigated, such as probation, parole, and mandatory jail sentences for persons convicted of driving under the influence.     

Feigning incompetency to stand trial

The vulnerability of competency to stand trial instruments to malingering was previously unexamined. In this study, the Georgia Court Competency Test (GCCT) was administered to offenders asked to feign incompetency; their results were compared to controls and pretrial defendants (both competent and incompetent). Offenders appeared to be able to simulate incompetency and tended to score lower on the GCCT than their truly incompetent counterparts. For the detection of simulators, a newly developed Atypical Presentation scale for the GCCT showed promise. In addition, several strategies were explored that included simulators' failure of very simple items (i.e., floor effect) and variable success on items of increasing difficulty (i.e., performance curve). Optimal cutting scores are presented for forensic clinicians to screen defendants for feigned incompetency.     

Treating incompetence to stand trial

InJackson v. Indiana (1972), the United States Supreme Court held that the primary justification for detaining defendants who are incompetent to stand trial is to provide them with relevant treatment. Unfortunately, the majority of forensic facilities place more emphasis on treating mental disability than on the specific symptoms that legally define incompetence to stand trial. Since this appears to be inconsistent withJackson, a study was conducted to test whether a treatment that deals with the specific symptoms of incompetence to stand trial would be more effective. As predicted, 21 patients who received such treatment showed significantly more improvement on an assessment instrument than 20 patients who received the more common form of treatment. In addition, more patients in the experimental treatment group than in the standard treatment group were able to be recommended to the court as competent. Implications are discussed.     

Domains of competency to stand trial

Attempts to improve the clinical rigor of competency to stand trial evaluations have resulted in the development of several psycholegal measures. Among the most widely used of these measures are the Competency Screening Test (CST), the Fitness Interview Test (FIT), and the Georgia Court Competency Test—Mississippi State Hospital Revision (GCCT-MSH). To examine the theoretical domains of the competency construct as assessed by these measures, a series of exploratory factor analyses were performed combining previously reported data on the FIT and GCCT-MSH with a new outpatient sample of 353 court referrals. For the CST, data from a previous sample were compared to the original validation study. Of the three measures, only the GCCT-MSH showed evidence of stable, independent factors. A comparison of the GCCT-MSH to theDusky standard suggested a need to further develop empirical measures to better represent underlying constructs related to the defendant-attorney relationship and defendant's participation in his or her defense.     

受审能力探析

受审能力是被告人接受法庭审判的能力。我国对受审能力的研究还处于起步阶段，立法上还有许多空白之处。本文从评定标准、提起、确认与法律后果等方面对受审能力进行了探讨。     

Assessment and conceptualization of competency to stand trial

Based on an examination of current methods used to define and assess a defendant's competency to stand trial, the authors propose an assessment and research instrument, referred to as the Interdisciplinary Fitness Interview (IFI). The IFI is a structured interview and rating scale designed to take into account both legal and mental health issues, and calls for an interdisciplinary approach to the assessment of competency. The purpose of the present study was to provide preliminary reliability and validity data on the use of the IFI in one jurisdiction. The results are discussed in terms of policy implications and the development of methods for evaluating competency with brief screening interviews in less restrictive settings.Support for this project was provided by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health, Center for Studies in Crime and Delinquency (Grant No. 1 RO 1 MH 33669-01) to the Social Science Research Institute. The data reported here are taken from a larger research project designed to assess the use of a number of methods for assessing competency. Our principal concern in this article is with preliminary analyses of the Interdisciplinary Fitness Interview, a measure developed expressly for this project. The authors thank William Glackman and George Tien for their assistance in data analysis and Amiram Elwork and anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier drafts.     

Competency to stand trial: a conceptual model for its proper assessment

The assessment of competency to stand trial is frequently fraught with conceptual confusion resulting from a failure to properly apply the data of the clinical examination to the relevant legal criteria. A basic question scheme that encompasses (1) the defendant's psychiatric status, (2) the effects of that status on his functioning, and (3) his apparent ability to participate in legal proceedings, is introduced to clarify the evaluation of fitness to stand trial. The way in which combinations of answers to three "basic questions" generate a scheme that clarifies the difficulties encountered in most competency evaluations is shown. Eight paradigm cases are generated. Five of these (competence, incompetence, mentally ill but competent, malingering, and impaired but competent) are frequently straightforward. However, the three possibilities in which a defendant meets criteria entailed by two of the three questions are inherently subject to controversy. These situations (circumscribed psychosis related to the charges, malingering in the context of mental illness, and functional deficits in the context of minor mental illness) are discussed in detail and illustrated with case material.     

Mutism, malingering, and competency to stand trial

Mutism and mental illness have had a long-standing historical relationship with regard to the issue of competence to stand trial. This article reports a defendant who remained mute for 10 months and describes his use of the symptom of mutism in his malingering. Although mutism is frequently used by defendants for malingering, clinicians must have a high index of suspicion for the possibility. We recommend a comprehensive evaluation including neurologic workup, repeat interviews, observation of the defendant at unsuspected times for communicative speech with other inmates, study of handwriting sample, collateral nursing documentation, and, if necessary, Pentothal interviews to establish authenticity of mutism. The authors review the historical background and legal considerations of the relationship between mutism and malingering.     

Developmental incompetence to stand trial in juvenile courts

Juveniles' competency to participate in delinquency proceedings has received increased attention in recent years. Developmental incompetence, whereby juveniles' incompetency is based upon their immaturity, as opposed to a mental disorder or developmental disability, is an evolving and important aspect of this area of law. The following paper reviews theories used to support the notion of developmental incompetence, as well as the extant empirical research on juveniles' competency-related abilities. Using a LexisNexis search, statutory and case laws pertaining to juvenile competency were identified across the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Only six states clearly allow developmental incompetence, whereas 17 have laws that do not include developmental immaturity as an acceptable basis of incompetence in juvenile courts. Developmental incompetence is likely to affect a relatively small proportion of juvenile cases, but has important implications for juvenile forensic practice. Recommendations are offered for forensic practitioners conducting this type of evaluation.     

受审能力探析

受审能力是被告人接受法庭审判的能力。我国对受审能力的研究还处于起步阶段,立法上还有许多空白之处。本文从评定标准、提起、确认与法律后果等方面对受审能力进行了探讨。     

Detection of malingering in competency to stand trial evaluations

A simulation design with multiple contrast groups was used to test the effectiveness of two instruments, the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS) and the Georgia Court Competency Test—Mississippi State Hospital (GCCT-MSH) in detecting malingering of competency to stand trial. Thirty simulators were compared with 23 incompetent defendants, 25 competent defendants, 30 offender controls, and 7 suspected malingerers on both instruments. Results revealed that the simulators and suspected malingerers scored significantly higher on all of the SIRS primary scales and significantly lower on the GCCT-MSH than the three comparison groups. The SIRS had an overall hit rate of 97.8% using three or more primary scales as the criterion for malingering. Information concerning the simulator's strategies of deception is presented.