Law Homework Help

Thread: Discuss the ramifications of competency to stand trial for someone claiming intellectual disability using the Dusky standard.

Do you believe there is a better way to assess competency? What might that be? Discuss the areas they would assess for cognitive impairment. What factors would you rely on in your evaluations to support their competency conclusions?  In addition, is it important for a defendant to be able to assist in his or her own defense to be deemed competent? How is putting people in mental institutions without their being able to explain themselves or their behavior any different than incarcerating them? Other than mental illness, why might certain sectors of the population be more likely to be judged incompetent than others?

1. Mack-Competency to stand trial is more of a legal concept than psychological. In the 1960 trial Dusky v. United States, the court concluded that a defendant has the right to have a competency evaluation before going to trial. This trial produced the Dusky standard or the competency standard. According to Rogers and Grandjean, “the defendant must show that they have the ability to consult with their lawyer and understand the reason that they are on trial” (Rogers, and Grandjean, 2000). Defendant cannot be ruled incompetent based on mental illness alone. The Dusky standard emphasized the cognitive ability to understand and the behavioral ability to consult with counsel. It also determines the level of understanding defendants have for the significance and consequences of a decision and whether the decision is coerced. Competency evaluations and assessments are also used to gage how defendants understand the proceedings. According to Costanzo and Krauss, it makes sense to consult clinical psychologists and other mental health professionals when trying to assess a defendant’s competency” (Costanzo, M., and Krauss, D. 2018). It is hard to tell if there is a better way to assess competency. There are some great strategies in places regarding assessments and tests for competence that have proven to be successful over the years. However, there can still be some flaws if extensive research is not done on the defendant. For example, family history, interviews with friends, coworkers, supervisors, teachers, could present a better outlook of the defendant and assist with the evaluation process. Competence evaluations are very important. “If a defendant does not understand the charges or proceedings in their case, the court cannot go forward without risk of violating the person’s constitutional rights” (Walker, 2015). This would not produce a fair trial. Also, the competency evaluation helps with sentencing as criminals can be placed in mental institutions instead of prison. This is still tricky in a way because the defendant would still be unable to process everything that is going. A mental institution may provide a better resource for help versus sending the defendant to prison where there are less amounts of resources available. People who are incompetent do not deserve to go to prison. They should be rehabilitated, counselled, and helped. However, they should be taken off of the streets until the they have proven some form of rehabilitation. The bible tells us, “Fear not, for I am with you; be not dismayed, for I am your God; I will strengthen you, I will help you, I will uphold you with my righteous right hand” (Isaiah 41:10 NKJV). God promises that he will not leave us in our darkest hours, and that he will assist us through all things. Just as God is helping those who are mentally challenged; the criminal justice system should aim to do the same.

References:

Costanzo, M., and Krauss, D. (2018). Forensic and Legal Psychology: Psychological Science Applied to Law, 3rd ed. Worth Publisher. ISBN: 9781319060312.

Rogers, R., & Grandjean, N. (2000). Competency measures and Dusky standard: A conceptual mismatch. Biennial Conference of the American Psychology-Law

Walker, M. (2015). How court-ordered competency evaluation work. Argus Leader. Retrieved from https://www.argusleader.com/story/news/2015/11/14/…

2. James- When considering the efficiency of competency assessments, the current testing methods discussed in chapter 8 seem to make the most sense. I am not aware of any other means of determining whether or not someone is competent other than conducting a series of evaluations and assessments. Assessments are even used on people wanting to enter the field of law enforcement in order to gain a sense of their emotional and mental capacities to figure out if someone would be a good fit. Cognitive impairment can be discovered through evaluations and observations. A cognitive impairment would impact someone’s entire livelihood and may present in someone who is having difficulty remembering things that the ordinary person should not forget. Again, this is where assessments and evaluations would solidify this diagnosis. Some factors that might trigger a reason for thinking that someone is having competency issues as it pertains to court proceedings, is a lack of understanding in how court hearings are conducted since in order to be rendered competent enough to stand trial, the defendant must be able to make sense of legal processes in the present as previously set by the Dusky standard. Other factors that might alert an evaluator of a competency issue could be, “behavioral instability, psychiatric symptoms, intellectual deficits, or interpersonal deficits” (Grossi et.al, 2018, p.167). It is worth noting that there is an obvious disconnect between mental health professionals and legal practitioners about what constitutes as being incompetent (Bardwell & Arrigo, 2002, p. 150). Costanzo and Krauss (2018) state that, “CST is a legal, not psychological, concept” (p.183). I do understand this statement, but I do not think that CST is solely based on the understanding of legal processes. We simply cannot deny the fact that mental capacity comes into play when attempting to figure out if someone is competent enough to stand trial. Without the cognitive and psychological component, there would be no basis for understanding basic court proceedings. I think that the term, “competency to stand trial” is a bit confusing because typically when I initially hear the word “competency” I tend to associate it with cognitive connotations before attributing it to legal matters. I wonder if using “CST” causes something to get lost in translation which would help to enforce the disconnect that is often present between law and psychology.

Determining whether or not a defendant should be able to assist in their own defense to be deemed competent can become a bit complicated. If the defendant is able to somehow prove that they are capable of providing pertinent information that will aid in their defense, then this would certainly help to make a good case for why they should be allowed to stand trial. On the other hand, you do not necessarily need to be well-versed in legal matters in order to give accurate details of an event.

Incarcerating and institutionalizing people are often done when someone has proven to be a threat to themselves and others. During instances of incarceration we hope that a fair and just trial was conducted in which the defendant was given the opportunity to assist with their defense and the retelling of pertinent events. Defendants are given the option to waive their right to take the stand and testify. In contrast, when someone is institutionalized, they are not always given the formal due process and the opportunity to immediately voice their opinions on their current circumstance. Decisions are made on their behalf. This is especially true if someone threatens to harm themselves and have not committed a crime. This would not result in the need for a trial. Costanzo and Krauss (2018) discuss how previous studies on individuals who are rendered incompetent by others are often those that are single and of a lower socio-economic status because it is unfortunately assumed that these individuals are of a lesser intelligence. Apparently, there also tends to be a history of substance abuse and mental illness present in legally incompetent defendants. (p.190). Someone who lives or was raised in a low-income household does not automatically mean that they are incompetent.  We should not assume things about others or think less of them as result of their background. James 4:12 says, “There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbors?”

Bardwell, M., Arrigo, B. (2002). Competency to Stand Trial: A law psychology, and policy assessment. Journal of Psychiatry & Law. 30(2), 147-270

Costanzo, M., Krauss, D. (2018). Forensic and Legal Psychology: Psychological Scienc Applied to Law (3rd ed). New York. NY: Worth Publishers. ISBN:9781319060312

Grossi, L., Green, D., Schneider, M., Belfi, B., Segal, S. (2018). Personality, Psychiatric, and Cognitive Predictors of Length of Time for Competency to Stand Trial Restoration. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health. 17 (2), 167-180

New King James Bible (1994). Nashville, TN. Thomas Nelson