COSIG CONFERENCE BROCHURE.pdf - Drexel University College ...

COSIG CONFERENCE BROCHURE.pdf - Drexel University College ... COSIG CONFERENCE BROCHURE.pdf - Drexel University College ...

drexelmed.edu
from drexelmed.edu More from this publisher
09.02.2014 Views

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

<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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!