COSIG CONFERENCE BROCHURE.pdf - Drexel University College ...
COSIG CONFERENCE BROCHURE.pdf - Drexel University College ... COSIG CONFERENCE BROCHURE.pdf - Drexel University College ...
COSIG Co-Occurring Disorders Conference, Hershey PA, May 15-17, 2006 Competence: A Historical Perspective • Medieval Common Law: if the defendant does not enter a plea they could be forced to do so, sometimes by dramatic methods. • Barbarism later replaced by use of a jury; – If the jury found the accused incapable of standing trial then prison was the place to learn (This issue finally addressed in Jackson vs. Indiana, 1992). Cont’d • Codified standards for use of a jury began in the late 1700’s. • Eventually the standard for competency placed heavy emphasis on the person’s cognitive capacity: – Possess sufficient reason to understand charges – Ability to participate in the trial in one’s own defense. Standards for Assessment • Clinician must distinguish between “competence” and other clinical /legal issues such as: – Presence of psychosis – Suitability for civil involuntary commitment – Responsibility for criminal acts • A standardized protocol with a rating scale is recommended (validity and reliability). McGarry Guidelines • 1. Ability to appraise the legal defenses available • 2. Level of unmanageable behavior. • 3. Quality of relating to attorney • 4. Ability to plan legal strategy* • 5. Ability to appraise the roles of various participants in the courtroom proceedings* • 6. Understanding of court procedure* • 7. Appreciation of the charges • 8. Appreciation of the range and nature of possible penalties • 9. Ability to appraise the likely outcomes* • 10. Capacity to disclose pertinent facts to attorney • 11. Capacity to challenge prosecution witnesses realistically • 12. Capacity to testify relevantly • 13. Manifestation of self-serving vs. selfdefeating motivation Role of the Mental Health Professional in Determining Competence • Competence is determined by a judge but clinicians now almost always assist. • Contemporary concerns revolve around constitutional concerns and maintaining faith in the criminal justice system. • Competence evaluation is required if there is “a bona fide doubt’ re: competence to stand trial. 4
COSIG Co-Occurring Disorders Conference, Hershey PA, May 15-17, 2006 Current Standards • 1. Each state determines standards governing criminal trials (see McNaghten). • 2. Dujsky vs. U.S. applies in federal cases: – Whether defendant has sufficient present ability to consult lawyer with reasonable degree of rational understanding, and whether defendant has a rational as well as a factual understanding of the proceedings against the defendant. Cont’d • 3. Current standards understood in the context of the following principles: – Understand the nature of the charges. – Understand the nature and purpose of the court proceedings. – Have a rational as well as a factual understanding of the proceedings. Should the clinician offer an opinion on a person’s competency to stand trial? • 1) Two opinions on how the clinician should present information re: competence: – A. Should not offer an opinion and provide only raw data; note that competence is not a clinical decision; and assert no expertise in legal areas. – B. As an arm of the court they should offer an opinion to be useful to the court; legitimate role of clinician; and recognizing bias in assessment & evaluation minimizes its effect. 2.) When pressed to give an opinion: • Cave in and give an opinion • Can protest that clinicians are not experts in legal matters • Note: clinician is not acting in traditional helping relationship and providing information to a third party may or may not be in the best interests of the person they are evaluating. 3.) Why you might abstain: • Distortion of the clinician/patient relationship • Court may use clinicians skills to the person’s detriment • The person could be seduced into confiding • The clinician is employed by a third party and not employed to provide treatment to the individual • Clinicians to not want to be viewed as an agent of social control. 4.) Why you might opine: • Forensic evaluation can protect the fairness function of the courts. – Clinician discomfort is not a reason to desist. • Clinicians should help courts as an obligation to society. – The clinician must grapple with the reality of ethical dilemmas. 5
- Page 331 and 332: Article by Kenneth Minkoff, MD and
- Page 333 and 334: Article by Kenneth Minkoff, MD and
- Page 335 and 336: Article by Kenneth Minkoff, MD and
- Page 337 and 338: Article by Kenneth Minkoff, MD and
- Page 339 and 340: Article by Kenneth Minkoff, MD and
- Page 341 and 342: Article by Kenneth Minkoff, MD and
- Page 343 and 344: Article by Kenneth Minkoff, MD and
- Page 345 and 346: Article by Kenneth Minkoff, MD and
- Page 347 and 348: Article by Kenneth Minkoff, MD and
- Page 349 and 350: Article by Kenneth Minkoff, MD and
- Page 351 and 352: Article by Kenneth Minkoff, MD and
- Page 353 and 354: RESOURCE BIBLIOGRAPHY (2005) 1. Ame
- Page 355 and 356: 38. Foundation Associates, Making M
- Page 357 and 358: 71. Minkoff K & Cline C, Developing
- Page 359 and 360: co-occurring psychiatric and substa
- Page 361: T31: Implementing Evidence-Based Pr
- Page 364 and 365: COSIG Co-Occurring Disorders Confer
- Page 366 and 367: COSIG Co-Occurring Disorders Confer
- Page 368 and 369: COSIG Co-Occurring Disorders Confer
- Page 371: T32: Berks County Adolescent Pilot
- Page 374 and 375: COSIG Co-Occurring Disorders Confer
- Page 376 and 377: COSIG Co-Occurring Disorders Confer
- Page 379 and 380: COSIG Co-Occurring Disorders Confer
- Page 381: COSIG Co-Occurring Disorders Confer
- Page 385 and 386: COSIG Co-Occurring Disorders Confer
- Page 387: COSIG Co-Occurring Disorders Confer
- Page 391 and 392: COSIG Co-Occurring Disorders Confer
- Page 393 and 394: COSIG Co-Occurring Disorders Confer
- Page 395 and 396: COSIG Co-Occurring Disorders Confer
- Page 397 and 398: COSIG Co-Occurring Disorders Confer
- Page 399: T35: CCISC Implementation in Pennsy
- Page 402 and 403: COSIG Co-Occurring Disorders Confer
- Page 404 and 405: COSIG Co-Occurring Disorders Confer
- Page 406 and 407: COSIG Co-Occurring Disorders Confer
- Page 408 and 409: COSIG Co-Occurring Disorders Confer
- Page 410 and 411: Volume 1, Issue 5 The Trainers meet
- Page 412 and 413: Volume 1, Issue 1 BLAIR COUNTY’S
- Page 414 and 415: Volume 1, Issue 1 Vision/Mission CO
- Page 416 and 417: Volume 1, Issue 1 3. The population
- Page 418 and 419: Volume 1, Issue 1 Complete
- Page 420 and 421: Volume 1, Issue 1 The forgoing Cons
- Page 422 and 423: Volume 1, Issue 1 Language for Inte
- Page 424 and 425: Volume 1, Issue 1 Language for Inte
- Page 427: T36: The Co-Occurring Distinction:
- Page 430 and 431: Integration or Occupation? •QUEST
<strong>COSIG</strong> Co-Occurring Disorders Conference, Hershey PA, May 15-17, 2006<br />
Competence: A Historical Perspective<br />
• Medieval Common Law: if the defendant<br />
does not enter a plea they could be forced<br />
to do so, sometimes by dramatic methods.<br />
• Barbarism later replaced by use of a jury;<br />
– If the jury found the accused incapable of<br />
standing trial then prison was the place to<br />
learn (This issue finally addressed in Jackson<br />
vs. Indiana, 1992).<br />
Cont’d<br />
• Codified standards for use of a jury began<br />
in the late 1700’s.<br />
• Eventually the standard for competency<br />
placed heavy emphasis on the person’s<br />
cognitive capacity:<br />
– Possess sufficient reason to understand<br />
charges<br />
– Ability to participate in the trial in one’s own<br />
defense.<br />
Standards for Assessment<br />
• Clinician must distinguish between<br />
“competence” and other clinical /legal<br />
issues such as:<br />
– Presence of psychosis<br />
– Suitability for civil involuntary commitment<br />
– Responsibility for criminal acts<br />
• A standardized protocol with a rating scale<br />
is recommended (validity and reliability).<br />
McGarry Guidelines<br />
• 1. Ability to appraise the legal defenses<br />
available<br />
• 2. Level of unmanageable behavior.<br />
• 3. Quality of relating to attorney<br />
• 4. Ability to plan legal strategy*<br />
• 5. Ability to appraise the roles of various<br />
participants in the courtroom proceedings*<br />
• 6. Understanding of court procedure*<br />
• 7. Appreciation of the charges<br />
• 8. Appreciation of the range and nature of<br />
possible penalties<br />
• 9. Ability to appraise the likely outcomes*<br />
• 10. Capacity to disclose pertinent facts to<br />
attorney<br />
• 11. Capacity to challenge prosecution witnesses<br />
realistically<br />
• 12. Capacity to testify relevantly<br />
• 13. Manifestation of self-serving vs. selfdefeating<br />
motivation<br />
Role of the Mental Health Professional<br />
in Determining Competence<br />
• Competence is determined by a judge but<br />
clinicians now almost always assist.<br />
• Contemporary concerns revolve around<br />
constitutional concerns and maintaining<br />
faith in the criminal justice system.<br />
• Competence evaluation is required if there<br />
is “a bona fide doubt’ re: competence to<br />
stand trial.<br />
4