Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 12:07 pm
Time: 12:07 pm
Results for competence to stand trial
6 results foundAuthor: Lieb, Roxanne Title: Competency to Stand Trial and Conditional Release Evaluation: Current and Potential Role of Forensic Assessment Instruments Summary: In response to a 2010 legislative direction, the Institute and DSHS are investigating options regarding the use of mental health assessment tools for two DSHS reports to the courts: Competency to stand trial assessments of criminal defendants whose competency is in question, and The Secretary’s recommendations to the courts concerning the potential conditional release of criminally insane patients from inpatient treatment. This document summarizes results of an October 2010 survey of state forensic evaluators concerning their use of assessment instruments. Thirty-one (of the 35) mental health experts who conduct forensic evaluations for the three state psychiatric hospitals (Western State, Eastern State, and Child Study and Treatment Center) responded to the online survey; this represents an 89 percent response rate. We present three options for assessment strategies and instruments, with advantages and disadvantages of each option. A detailed comparison of instruments is included. Details: Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2011. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 15, 2011 at: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/11-05-3401.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/11-05-3401.pdf Shelf Number: 122074 Keywords: Competence to Stand TrialConditional Release (Washington State)Mental HealthMentally Ill Offenders |
Author: Walsh, Nastassia Title: When Treatment is Punishment: The Effects of Maryland's Incompetency to Stand Trial Policies and Practices Summary: In FY2010, the Maryland Mental Hygiene Administration provided 789 pretrial screenings and evaluations for incompetency to stand trial, 77 percent of which were for the District Courts. Baltimore City makes up the largest percentage of screenings and evaluations in the state: 23 percent come from Baltimore, 72 percent of which are for the Baltimore City District Courts. In FY2011, 129 competency screenings were conducted in Baltimore City District Court, 70 percent of which were referred for further evaluation due to the possibility of incompetency to stand trial. At the end of FY2011, two out of every three people (68 percent) in state psychiatric hospitals in Maryland were on forensic status, meaning they were involved in the justice system, either as incompetent to stand trial (IST) or after a finding of “not criminally responsible.” While the total number of people treated in state hospitals in Maryland has decreased 18 percent since FY2006, the number committed as IST increased 113 percent since FY2006, from 163 people to 348 in FY2011. For Spring Grove Hospital Center (Spring Grove), where the majority of IST patients are committed by the Baltimore City District Court, this percentage increase is even greater: the number of people committed as IST increased 335 percent since FY 2006, from 34 people to 148 at the end of FY2011. This increase in the number of forensic IST commitments is happening at the same time that Maryland is diverting civil admissions to private and community hospitals by purchasing beds in those settings, closing state hospitals and reducing beds in many facilities. The reasons for this shift include a belief that most people are more appropriately served in hospitals and outpatient settings located in their own communities, and for cost-containment purposes. However, due to the increasing numbers of forensic patients, including IST patients, state hospitals are still operating at or above capacity. Increasing commitments by the courts and increasing lengths of stay for people who are committed puts intense pressure on Maryland to continue operating at current state hospital bed capacity, and perhaps even consider expanding. During the 2011 legislative session, the budget committee of the Maryland General Assembly reallocated $200,000 from the general fund appropriation made to support the operations of the state hospitals for Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH) to use for an independent study on (a) potential demand for state hospital capacity, including the maximum appropriate use of community-based alternatives; and (b) best practices for facility operations, including building size and configuration; and (c) appropriate site locations based on future demand. An accurate analysis of future need for state hospital beds cannot be made without close scrutiny of the legitimacy of current use of beds by the courts, particularly the rapidly increasing IST population. As Spring Grove alone saw a 335 percent increase in IST patients, examining court practices— especially those of the Baltimore City District Court, which makes up the majority of IST commitments to Spring Grove—is necessary to make sure courts are using IST commitments appropriately and effectively. Details: Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 2011. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 17, 2011 at: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/when_treatment_is_punishment-full_report.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/when_treatment_is_punishment-full_report.pdf Shelf Number: 123012 Keywords: Competence to Stand TrialMental Health ServicesMentally Ill Offenders (Maryland) |
Author: Jurecska, Diomaris Title: Competence to Stand Trial: Special Challenges for the Population Diagnosed With Intellectual Disabilities and Borderline Intellectual Functioning Summary: This study contributes to the psychometric validity of the psychological tests most frequently used to determine competency to stand trial for people with intellectual disabilities. First, the relationship between The MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool (MacCAT-CA) and the Competence Assessment to Stand Trial for Defendants with Intellectual Disabilities (CAST-MR) was analyzed, including their respective determination of competency for currently adjudicated adults with intellectual disabilities. Second, the relationship between performance on the Malingered Incompetence Legal Knowledge test (MILK), a new measure designed to evaluate malingering by people with intellectual disabilities in a legal context, and the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) was explored. Additionally, this study contributes to the development of norms for both the MacCAT-CA and the MILK in a population with intellectual disabilities. Results demonstrate that was not significant agreement between the MacCAT-CA and the CAST-MR in determining adjudicative competency in the study population. The lack of convergent validity between these two commonly used measures raises questions about test validity and whether individuals with intellectual disabilities are held to a lower standard for adjudicative competence. Further, a significant correlation between the TOMM and the MILK suggests that evidence of exaggerated cognitive impairments does suggest feigned ignorance of legal knowledge. The evidence from this study suggests that CST evaluations with an ID population results in different findings based on the measure that the examiner chooses. Consequently, adherence to appropriate and standardized measures is needed in forensic psychology to ensure the quality of the evaluation. Details: Newberg, OR: George Fox University, 2010. 59p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed November 29, 2011 at: http://www.oregon.gov/DOC/RESRCH/docs/jurecska_dissertation100628.pdf?ga=t Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.oregon.gov/DOC/RESRCH/docs/jurecska_dissertation100628.pdf?ga=t Shelf Number: 123460 Keywords: Competence to Stand TrialMental HealthMentally Ill Offenders |
Author: Larson, Kimberly Title: Developing Statutes for Competence to Stand Trial in Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings: A Guide for Lawmakers Summary: The National Youth Screening and Assessment Project, part of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation's Models for Change Initiative recently released a guide for policymakers who are considering creating juvenile competence to stand trial legislation. Authored by Kimberly Larson, J.D., Ph.D. and Thomas Grisso, Ph.D., the guide outlines the sixteen most important points lawmakers must consider in the creation of such legislation. Statutory language examples are provided throughout the guide on each of the sixteen key issues. This guide provides a comprehensive look at juveniles' competence to stand trial. It will be of use not only to those considering drafting legislation in this area or currently creating juvenile competence to stand trial laws in their state, but also to judges who are addressing the issue of competence within their courts. Attorneys and mental health professionals can also use it to learn more about the application of competence to juveniles. Details: National Youth Screening & Assessment Project, 2011. 104p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 26, 2015 at: http://modelsforchange.net/publications/330 Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://modelsforchange.net/publications/330 Shelf Number: 129792 Keywords: Competence to Stand TrialJuvenile OffendersMental Health |
Author: Kruh, Ivan Title: Developing Service Delivery Systems for Evaluations of Juveniles' Competence to Stand Trial: A Guide for States and Counties Summary: The purpose of this Guide is to help states or counties develop a "forensic evaluation system" (FES) for providing courts evaluations of juveniles' competence to stand trial (JCST). An FES for JCST evaluations has three components that are described in the three modules in this Guide: Module 1: Developing a JCST Evaluation Service Delivery System (SDS)-An organizational structure and procedures within which JCST evaluations are provided to the courts Module 2: Creating Evaluation Standards-Criteria that JCST examiners should meet when performing JCST evaluations and writing reports Module 3: Quality Control: Developing a Process to Apply the Standards-Ways to ensure that the evaluation standards for examinations are actually implemented properly by examiners Why the Guide Is Needed The requirement that juvenile court defendants must be competent to stand trial is fairly new, not being in evidence much before the 1990s. When attorneys and juvenile advocates began to claim that competence to stand trial (CST) should apply to delinquency proceedings, there was some doubt about the need for it, as the juvenile court had existed for almost 100 years without the requirement. But in the past fifteen years, appellate courts examining the issue decided that CST was a fundamental due process right in juvenile delinquency cases. This created new demands and challenges for juvenile courts. What exactly was required to be a competent juvenile defendant? How would evaluations be done, and who would do them? What should the evaluations look like? Some states simply tried to use their definitions of CST and process for getting CST evaluations that had been in place for adult criminal defendants. But other states recognized that CST in juvenile court required its own definitions and procedures. As a consequence, many states began developing new, specialized statutes for the application of CST in juvenile court, 20 of them by 2010. In 2011, the need for guidance in development of JCST legislation prompted the publication of a guide for lawmakers. Between 2010 and 2015, eleven more states passed specialized JCST statutes, bringing the current total to 31 states with juvenile-specific statutes that guide JCST. The remaining 19 states and the District of Columbia recognize CST in juvenile court, and it is likely that many of them will develop legislation to codify its application before long. Once juvenile-specific statutes are passed and enacted, the job is far from done. States must then tackle the complex task of implementation - that is, putting the new laws into practice. How will the new laws be applied? How will the legal and mental health systems manage the new demands for obtaining JCST evaluations? This Guide, then, aims to assist states in one part of this implementation phase assuring that courts and attorneys can obtain reliable forensic evaluations to assist the juvenile court in reaching decisions about CST in juvenile cases. JCST evaluations require a specialized process that is similar to such evaluations in criminal court in some ways yet dissimilar in others. On average, children and adolescents do not have adult capacities. The complex contours of child development, developmental psychopathology and the juvenile court system call for different rules, examiners with different skills, and different considerations in JCST cases than in adult CST cases. Those differences were outlined in an earlier clinical guide devoted to conducting JCST evaluations. In addition, Kruh and Grisso offered a best-practices manual for conducting JCST evaluations that was published soon after. Those documents offer a background for the present Guide, in that they describe the task of the examiner in JCST evaluations. Details: Delmar, NY: National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice, 2017. 91p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 27, 2017 at: https://www.ncmhjj.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Juvenile_Competency_to_Stand_Trial_FINAL_508.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncmhjj.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Juvenile_Competency_to_Stand_Trial_FINAL_508.pdf Shelf Number: 145825 Keywords: Competence to Stand TrialForensic EvaluationJuvenile CourtJuvenile DefendantsJuvenile OffendersMental Health |
Author: Watts, Alexis Title: Closing the "Gap" Between Competency and Commitment in Minnesota: Ideas from National Standards and Practices in Other States Summary: In Minnesota, a "gap" exists in the justice system for defendants with mental illness. Defendants in criminal cases are found incompetent to stand trial, yet do not meet the higher standard for civil commitment. Commitment is the only way to receive competency restoration treatment, so individuals who do not meet the standard are unable to resolve their criminal cases or to receive treatment. The Robina Institute conducted research see how other states address incompetency. Below are the key findings from that research: 1. Minnesota's system, in which a determination of incompetency to stand trial is not a sufficient basis for the court to mandate some form of restoration to competency treatment, is unique. Most states employ a few basic strategies to treat defendants. A finding of incompetency may trigger: - Some form of commitment (often based on the incompetency finding and not on a separate commitment standard); - Court-ordered inpatient or outpatient treatment; and/or - Pre-trial release during which treatment is a condition of release. 2. States that have not found adequate treatment alternatives but require judges to order treatment often experience an overflow of mentally ill defendants waiting in limbo for a bed after treatment is ordered; many await treatment in jails. 3. Defendant rights are an important consideration in writing a law that closes the "gap." Minnesota's current system holds the individual rights of mentally ill defendants in high regard and does not simply confine them for being incompetent to stand trial as many other states do. 4. A handful of jurisdictions that have streamlined the commitment process or created other legal mechanisms to close the gap have also taken steps to ensure treatment for defendants in the least-restrictive setting. However, the "least restrictive setting" language loses meaning where no alternatives to inpatient treatment exist (similar to civil commitment in Minnesota, which can only be to a secure hospital setting). 5. In some states, "treatability" is a key consideration in determining the appropriate action upon a finding of incompetency. Untreatable defendants may face civil commitment or release but they are not offered treatment resources. 6. Thirty-one states operate formal and informal outpatient competency restoration treatment programs. Meanwhile, several different states have begun to utilize jail-based treatment to competency. However, such a program may not satisfy Minnesota's due process requirements. Solutions to address the competency gap in Minnesota should focus on several areas: - Consider whether to preserve the current legal standard for commitment, lower the standard for this type of commitment, and/or to design an alternative legal mechanism (such as pre-trial conditional release or a court order) for the purposes of competency treatment. Any proposal for change should take into account the capacity of the system and consideration of the state's commitment to the rights of defendants. - Work to develop less restrictive forms of treatment than exist in a maximum-security hospital. Community-based outpatient care may meet the needs of many low-to-medium risk defendants. - Ensure that the treatment delivered is high quality and truly addresses the competency needs of the criminal defendant. - Work to improve the mental health infrastructure in general to make it easier to access care before a crime can take place and to offer an alternative to defendants whose cases are dismissed but who still need treatment. Details: Minneapolis: Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 2018. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 8, 2018 at: https://robinainstitute.umn.edu/publications/new-report-alexis-lee-watts-closing-%E2%80%9Cgap%E2%80%9D-between-competency-and-commitment-minnesota-%E2%80%8B Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://robinainstitute.umn.edu/publications/new-report-alexis-lee-watts-closing-%E2%80%9Cgap%E2%80%9D-between-competency-and-commitment-minnesota-%E2%80%8B Shelf Number: 149024 Keywords: Competence to Stand TrialDefendantsMental Health ServicesMentally Ill Offenders |